What An Ass
(Warning: This post contains many uses of the word "ASS" this may not be suitable for children, sensitive adults or other asses)
This post is to deal with people who are simply being asses. First up is Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who stated:
'Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Zahedan. ''If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?''
''This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country,''
Now he's an ass for three reasons:
a) It is a known fact that the Nazi Holocaust happened. Therefore saying it doesn't and using racist holocaust deniers to "prove" the point, makes him an ass.
b) even if you are dumb enough to actually believe that the Holocaust did not occur, as a president of a nation and therefore a leader on the world stage, who has a risk of open warfare with the US and others due to nuclear issues, it is STOOOOPID to make such a comment slip from the mouth. That makes him a double ass.
c) His statement on where Israel is located is valid. I agree that if the Arabs were not under the heel of colonization and were better armed and organized there was no way that the State of Isreal would exist in Palestiine. He is absolutely correct to point out that the Palestinians are paying the cost for the acts of Germany. However; since he went and denied the Nazi Holocaust actually occured, he managed to take attention away from his valid point and place it squarely on the indefensible idea that the Nazi Holocaust never happened.
If this is representative of the best Iranian leadership, then Iran is in for trouble.
Ass #2: Rev. Jesse Peterson.
The Christian Broadcast Network, The one lead by Pat Robertson who is on record calling for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, posted an interview with the Rev. Jesse Peterson. Rev. Jesse Lee, the author of a book entitled Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America., shows how little self respect he has as a black man and as an individual by even allowing himself to be interviewed by a person who advocates the murder of a duely elected head of state. That alone quaifies him as an ass. But it gets worse.
Rev Peterson was on air to discuss Kwanzaa and the "threat" it poses to the "true" meaning of Christmas. I would think that if one wanted to discuss Kwanzaa then one would at least attempt to get Maulana Karenga on the show (though he probably has too much self respect to do such a thing). No instead Pat Robertson leads with:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, when I first heard about Kwanzaa—I’ve been to Africa many, many, many times, in a number of countries, and I had never heard of Kwanzaa. And it turns out, there’s not one African country that has ever celebrated anything called Kwanzaa. So we began to explore where it came from. Well, today we’re going to tell you
So first we have Mr. White-Man-Authority-On-All-Things-African telling us what he "knows" about African culture. And though he claims to be about to give information about Kwanzaa, there is not one thing in the entire interview that actually discusses Kwanzaa. Rather the entire interview is about Rev. Peterson's personal issues with Maulana Karenga. I mean if that was to be the point of the interview why not name it appropriately? Anyways, having failed to find anyone familiar with Kwanzaa, Rev. Peterson plays token pet Negro and begins his spiel against Karenga:
I’ve debated Ron Karenga. The socialist, Marxist, black racist, now professor at Cal State, Long Beach, here in Los Angeles, created this holiday because of his hatred toward Christianity and Jews. And Ron said that part of his motivation was his dislike and that he was going to create this holiday during the Christmas season, because that’s when most people were celebrating. And the reason that he called it an African holiday, because he felt that if he didn’t, that most black people would not celebrate the holiday. And our purpose today is to get the message out that it’s ‘Merry Christmas’ and not ‘Happy Kwanzaa.’
Indeed anyone familiar with Kwanzaa knows that it was picked to happen around Christmas because of the number of celebrations that happen at this time. Dr. Karenga was also no doubt familiar with the actual reason why the birth of the "sun" of God was celebrated on Dec 25. This reason being that the week of Dec 25 is the the week where the amount of daylight begins to increase ( by about a minute or so). just about every ancient civilization knew this and Karenga was familiar with this information. Unfortunately to those who's minds have been captured by these fools, they know less than people who lived 0ver 4000 years ago.
Secondly, Kwanzaa does not begin until after Christmas. Therefore, claims that it is a substitute for Christmas is unfounded. Lastly It is called an African Holiday not because any specific African people celebrate (or celebrated) Kwanzaa, but because it is based on an amalgam of African cultural practices and and an African language. Hence at Peterson's opening statement he already proves himself wholly incapable of intelligent conversation on the subject at hand. And yet and still people are being exposed to him. Of course the conversation goes further into the realm of personal attack. Says Peterson:
Well, before then he was a felon. He went to prison for four years for torturing a couple women who followed him back in the 60s. He was the head of a Marxist organization called United Slavery Organization back in the 60s, along with the Black Panthers. But the issue is that, during those days, this man was so radical, and his organization was so violent against white Americans, against America, against what was right, that even the Black Panthers didn’t get along with the United Slave Organization. They were headed up at UCLA for a while there. They were fighting over the black study program. They wanted to start a black study program back in the 60s. So they fought with the Black Panther organization for the black study program. And they ended up murdering one another, and he ended up in jail. He’s now a felon and a professor at the university, Cal State Northridge, Long Beach.
To those who do not know Ron Karenga went to Jail. So did Malcolm X. Anyway. Peterson Apparently was confused as to the name of Karenga's organization; United Slaves. Peterson claims that US was violent against white Americans, yet can offer no proof or example of said violence. Anyone familiar with the era knows full well that the violence that occured by the BPP and US were, unfortunately, between each other and that violence concerning "white Americans" were those comeing from white Americans at the hands of thier police. But such facts are apparently beyond the grasp of Rev. Peterson.
Of course Robertson goes on to have Peterson explain in some details the torture charge against Karenga, conluding:
Well now, should Christians have anything to do with that?
PETERSON: Absolutely no. And as a matter of fact, according to the seven principles of Kwanzaa, whites are not allowed, Jews are not allowed. It’s a socialist idea. There is no mention of God. And when you read those seven principles, as you can read them in my book, Scam, there is no mention of God. And there is a flag that they pledge allegiance to, the red, black and green flag, and this flag is about shedding blood. Ron said that black people shed blood in this county, they lost their land, and in order to regain the land, they’re going to have to shed more blood. And so it’s a violent idea. It’s a separatist idea. And I could guarantee, Mr. Robertson, if a white man had come up with the same idea, and it was called European whatever, America would be up in arms about it. But because this man is black, he is allowed to get away with this racist, godless holiday.
I see, If a person has been involved in torture and murder then any kind of ideology they expouse ought not to be followed. I can get with that. In fact I have gotten with that. I am no longer a Christian. Since Christians were directly responsible for my being here and for slavery, murder, torture and all kinds of criminal and morally reprehencible acts, There is no reason for any sane black person to even give the religion a second thought. Who cares if the religion has some good points to it right? If the adherents show themselves to be totally unchanged by it's philosophy, then no need to follow. Thanks Mr. Robertson!
Peterson however, is the typical negro "NO whites allowed!! Massa can't come? I can't be without Massa!!" I won't even go into the clear non-knowledge of the Red Black and Green.
Peterson is bent out of shape over the fact that "God" is not mentioned in the Nguzu Saba (Seven Principles). Well since Karenga states outright that Kwanzaa is not a religious holiday, why does that surprise Peterson? And since it does not mention "God" then how would it be a threat to Christmas since those that feel a need to observe the birth of thier "Christ" can still do so unmolested by Kwanzaa?
And since Kwanzaa is also about Black cultural redemption and since Rev. Peterson is not interested in that, I suggest that he be officialy banned from Kwanzaa celebrations. then he can't complain about it being racist, since he and his black behind can't come either.
Peterson then goes on a diatribe, and still does not actually discuss Kwanzaa:
There is a double standard in America today, and that double standard is liberal, godless black folks are allowed to do and say what they want. And white folks are afraid of being called a racist. And I was disgusted when Bill Clinton did it but was not surprised. But when our great President Bush, a man that I believe God has given us so that we can turn this country around, when he celebrated this holiday, my heart was broken. Because black folks, not all, not all, not all, but most black people are already suffering because of too much government, corrupt black leaders, and most corrupt black preachers. Their family is destroyed. The order of God is destroyed. And for President Bush to proclaim Kwanzaa a holiday that we should recognize, it’s evil, for the lack of a better word. He’s promoting evil.
Liberal godless black folks. Wow. What an ass. It only the humanity and tolerance of black folks why Rev. Peterson can even get away with these comments. I hear that in Iraqm, such insults result in car bombings and other painfull deaths. No, in America, Peterson is free to insult millions of people on TV and no one really care that much. Of course he doesn't really value this freedom so he has this little rant. Bill Clinton and George Bush did what any leader of a diverse "democratic" country is supposed to do: recognize that there are people with different values and customs and acknowledged them. Of course Peterson would rather we 'godless' liberals" would just go somewhere and die. We're evil. We don't support killing Iraqis or occupying a country. Nor do we support lying. But we're evil.
Yes. Peterson is an ass. An ass, being interviewed by another ass. They are having a big ass party over an CNB.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Bill Cosby Revisted
As any regular here knows. I have defended 99% of what Bill Cosby said in May 2004 with the exception of the name comments. My objection to the name issue was based on the incomplete reporting that i had access too. Even though my information was incomplete I was still able to come to a far better and factual analysis of brother Bill than many of my peers to the left.
Yesterday I found a pamphlet entitled 'Don't Mess With Bill"that had the entire May 2004 speech and so I read it. I now must retract my disagreement with Dr. Cosby on the name issue. It appears that on that issue I too fell for the okey doke. Below is the exact comment Dr. Cosby made about names:
...With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all them are in jail. (When we give these kids of names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What's the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up?)
So there you have it. Mr. Cosby was made out to be villifying certain names when in fact he was not. While I don't care for the "We are not Africans" comment that he made. It is clear that his words were distorted by the media AND many "progressive" black writers fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
links:
www.soulseriousbooklets.com
As any regular here knows. I have defended 99% of what Bill Cosby said in May 2004 with the exception of the name comments. My objection to the name issue was based on the incomplete reporting that i had access too. Even though my information was incomplete I was still able to come to a far better and factual analysis of brother Bill than many of my peers to the left.
Yesterday I found a pamphlet entitled 'Don't Mess With Bill"that had the entire May 2004 speech and so I read it. I now must retract my disagreement with Dr. Cosby on the name issue. It appears that on that issue I too fell for the okey doke. Below is the exact comment Dr. Cosby made about names:
...With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all them are in jail. (When we give these kids of names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What's the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up?)
So there you have it. Mr. Cosby was made out to be villifying certain names when in fact he was not. While I don't care for the "We are not Africans" comment that he made. It is clear that his words were distorted by the media AND many "progressive" black writers fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
links:
www.soulseriousbooklets.com
Aussies getting thier White On
Descendants of white European prisoners who practiced genocide against the 'Aboriginal" people of Austrailians have continued thier heritage by attacking random Arabs on a beach in "retaliation" for the beating a Lifeguard recieved at the hands of some Lebanese. I would be interested in knowing whether white youth regularly take revenge for beatings that other white youth get at the hands of other white youth but anyways. The PM of Australia is quoted as saying:
''Attacking people on the basis of their race, their appearance, their ethnicity, is totally unacceptable and should be repudiated by all Australians irrespective of their own background and their politics,'' Howard said.
But he added: ''I'm not going to put a general tag (of) racism on the Australian community.''Of course not. I mean Genocide, forced removal from families, discrimination and, oh yes, the Aborigional athlete in the olympics who felt the need to represent for her people. Nawww Austrailia doesn't have a "race" problem. Just a few 'white supremacists" stirring up trouble.
White youths were reported as :
One white teenager had the words ''We grew here, you flew here'' painted on his back. Someone had written ''100 percent Aussie pride'' in the sand.
Like ancestor, like child.
links:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Australia-Racial-Unrest.html?hp
Descendants of white European prisoners who practiced genocide against the 'Aboriginal" people of Austrailians have continued thier heritage by attacking random Arabs on a beach in "retaliation" for the beating a Lifeguard recieved at the hands of some Lebanese. I would be interested in knowing whether white youth regularly take revenge for beatings that other white youth get at the hands of other white youth but anyways. The PM of Australia is quoted as saying:
''Attacking people on the basis of their race, their appearance, their ethnicity, is totally unacceptable and should be repudiated by all Australians irrespective of their own background and their politics,'' Howard said.
But he added: ''I'm not going to put a general tag (of) racism on the Australian community.''Of course not. I mean Genocide, forced removal from families, discrimination and, oh yes, the Aborigional athlete in the olympics who felt the need to represent for her people. Nawww Austrailia doesn't have a "race" problem. Just a few 'white supremacists" stirring up trouble.
White youths were reported as :
One white teenager had the words ''We grew here, you flew here'' painted on his back. Someone had written ''100 percent Aussie pride'' in the sand.
Like ancestor, like child.
links:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Australia-Racial-Unrest.html?hp
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
A shooting in Miami
Today federal air marshals shot a "hispanic" man on the jetway as he was leaving an airplane. The man, Rigoberto Alpizar, was shot because after being told to freeze or something to that effect, he reached into a bag. According to the NY Times:
Mr. Bauer said the air marshals then challenged him, but the man fled the plane. When he refused to follow their instructions and made what they considered a threatening move, he was shot, Mr. Bauer said.
"His actions caused them to fire shots, and in fact he is deceased," Mr. Bauer said.
"His actions caused them to fire shots." If ever there was a wrong statement this is it. In a country where the dominant political party consists of people calling for "Personal responsibility" and "self control" it is hypocritcaly to say that mr Alpizar "caused" the air marshals to do anything. Lest the reader think I'm being overly "liberal" in my accessment I offer evidence 1: The Brazilian man shot by London Police for "running towards a train." It was only after killing the man did the police "find out" that the man was in fact an electrician and was running to the train as not to be late for work. The London police even attempted to lie about the situation by saying he was making threatening moves. These stories were later shown to be incorrect. But it was too late, the man was dead.
This underscores the importance of the presumption of innocence. The police cannot execute suspects because suspects have not done anything. But in post 9-11 America (and London) a suspect can have all legal protections removed. I have been consistent in my position that police should only use deadly force (that would be "shoot to kill") only if their lives are in immediate danger. Not that they think it may be, or that the "suspect" might do x,y or z but the gun must be produced, in fact I would say the weapon should be fired.
In this particular case the Marshal said he heard the man say something about having a bomb. Hmmmm. now lets think about this. The man has a bomb on a plane and announces it to everyone. Not the MO of any recent terrorists but maybe he does have it. He does not produce the bomb or offer any proof of having any such device. Furthermore he is exiting the plane. Thus the plane is clearly not the target even if he had a bomb. The man is shot on the jetway between the plane and the terminal. If anything at this point he is not a danger to anyone on the plane nor is he a danger to anyone in the terminal as he is in a controled space between the plane and the terminal. Now after apparently being told to lay down. he does not. OK. Air marshals are the best sharp shooters in American security. Why not shot the man on the leg or the arm? Surely they can do so as they are trained to take precision shots. If getting shot in the leg is anything like a charlie horse then he's guaranteed to go down. Problem solved. The air marshals had choices and chose to murder an innocent man who apparently needed to take his medicine for Bi-Polar disorder. Let me offer what probably happened:
The man attempted to go to the restroom to take his meds and was unable to do so because the steward or stewardess would not let him go before take off (perhaps for security reasons). The man being on the manic side of Bi-polar disease went off on the stewardess (and I've seen Bi-Polar people go off and takes very little when their off meds). He probably says something like "you think I have a bomb!" and then goes to exit the plane so that he could use the bathroom in the terminal. He hears the marshals whome he may or may not have looked at (I don't see any reports that he actually faced the marshalls) yelling at him. He thinks that the marshals are more "airplane people" trying to piss him off some more and ignores them on the way to the bathroom to take his meds. He gets shot. He dies.
So let's see where this goes. In my book this was a homicide on the level of Diallo. Police professionals with a monopoly on deadly force, failed to act on the assumption of innocence and murdered a person. 9-11 should not be an excuse for improperly handle a situation. It is the air marshals job to put thier life on the line to protect the innocent. It was there job to take the risk that the man was not a threat to not kill him. If they can't do that then they are in the wrong line of work.
Today federal air marshals shot a "hispanic" man on the jetway as he was leaving an airplane. The man, Rigoberto Alpizar, was shot because after being told to freeze or something to that effect, he reached into a bag. According to the NY Times:
Mr. Bauer said the air marshals then challenged him, but the man fled the plane. When he refused to follow their instructions and made what they considered a threatening move, he was shot, Mr. Bauer said.
"His actions caused them to fire shots, and in fact he is deceased," Mr. Bauer said.
"His actions caused them to fire shots." If ever there was a wrong statement this is it. In a country where the dominant political party consists of people calling for "Personal responsibility" and "self control" it is hypocritcaly to say that mr Alpizar "caused" the air marshals to do anything. Lest the reader think I'm being overly "liberal" in my accessment I offer evidence 1: The Brazilian man shot by London Police for "running towards a train." It was only after killing the man did the police "find out" that the man was in fact an electrician and was running to the train as not to be late for work. The London police even attempted to lie about the situation by saying he was making threatening moves. These stories were later shown to be incorrect. But it was too late, the man was dead.
This underscores the importance of the presumption of innocence. The police cannot execute suspects because suspects have not done anything. But in post 9-11 America (and London) a suspect can have all legal protections removed. I have been consistent in my position that police should only use deadly force (that would be "shoot to kill") only if their lives are in immediate danger. Not that they think it may be, or that the "suspect" might do x,y or z but the gun must be produced, in fact I would say the weapon should be fired.
In this particular case the Marshal said he heard the man say something about having a bomb. Hmmmm. now lets think about this. The man has a bomb on a plane and announces it to everyone. Not the MO of any recent terrorists but maybe he does have it. He does not produce the bomb or offer any proof of having any such device. Furthermore he is exiting the plane. Thus the plane is clearly not the target even if he had a bomb. The man is shot on the jetway between the plane and the terminal. If anything at this point he is not a danger to anyone on the plane nor is he a danger to anyone in the terminal as he is in a controled space between the plane and the terminal. Now after apparently being told to lay down. he does not. OK. Air marshals are the best sharp shooters in American security. Why not shot the man on the leg or the arm? Surely they can do so as they are trained to take precision shots. If getting shot in the leg is anything like a charlie horse then he's guaranteed to go down. Problem solved. The air marshals had choices and chose to murder an innocent man who apparently needed to take his medicine for Bi-Polar disorder. Let me offer what probably happened:
The man attempted to go to the restroom to take his meds and was unable to do so because the steward or stewardess would not let him go before take off (perhaps for security reasons). The man being on the manic side of Bi-polar disease went off on the stewardess (and I've seen Bi-Polar people go off and takes very little when their off meds). He probably says something like "you think I have a bomb!" and then goes to exit the plane so that he could use the bathroom in the terminal. He hears the marshals whome he may or may not have looked at (I don't see any reports that he actually faced the marshalls) yelling at him. He thinks that the marshals are more "airplane people" trying to piss him off some more and ignores them on the way to the bathroom to take his meds. He gets shot. He dies.
So let's see where this goes. In my book this was a homicide on the level of Diallo. Police professionals with a monopoly on deadly force, failed to act on the assumption of innocence and murdered a person. 9-11 should not be an excuse for improperly handle a situation. It is the air marshals job to put thier life on the line to protect the innocent. It was there job to take the risk that the man was not a threat to not kill him. If they can't do that then they are in the wrong line of work.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Black Conservative on Iraq
So Joseph C Phillips claims to want an Honest Debate About The War. This "honest debate" begins with:
Debate is good! Dissent may not be the province of America alone, but the right to dissent freely without repercussion is as American as apple pie. However, if our discourse is to bear fruit it must be responsible. We can’t have an honest debate so long as the issues are clouded with hysteria more appropriate to Hollywood science fiction.
Sounds good so far, even with the obligatory "Apple Pie" comment. I mean he's black, he could have said American as "Jim Crow" or something equally culturally relevant, but hey, It's Joseph. Next he has this:
Our incursion into Iraq was motivated by the belief that democracy and freedom as opposed to tyranny and instability would lay a foundation of peace that would lead to victory in the war on terror. That is it in a nutshell and those reasons have not changed. To their credit, more than a few Democrats supported the president. In 2002, Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proclaimed, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president’s approaching this in the right fashion.” That same year on NBC’s Meet The Press, New York Senator Hillary Clinton announced: “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interests of our national security …”
In an article in Time magazine, former President Bill Clinton articulates rather clearly that in the aftermath of 9/11/01, President Bush had a responsibility to make certain Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons didn’t fall into the hands of terrorists. If our president lied then there is a long list of Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy that also lied.
Wow. Two problems here. I'll deal with the second one first. Any parent would recognize the "if Bush lied so did..." argument as the ones that children who are fighting use. "He did it first!!!." Yes, folks, this is the level of argument that we're dealing with. But the first one is all "Apple Pie." This was not sold on Democracy and Freedom. I guess Phillip has had his head in the sand for so long that all the memos and news reports have completely passed him by. But let's take Phillip at his word. If the ultimate purpose for going into Iraq was to win the "War on Terror." then lets look at the facts "on the ground."
Saddam Hussein, a CIA stool, was put into power in Iraq in order to act as a "counter" to Iran. Saddam Hussien was disliked by the very leadership of Al-Q, the current ever present boogy monster, who wrote, as quoted in many publications. Hussein, the "tyrant" that he was had a Secular, modern country, where he kept the feuds between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds under control. We may disagree with the methods of that control, but none the less, Iraq was not a safe place for terrorists and Hussein had no love for or had no love from so called 'terrorists." Furthermore, while the country was able to make money off it's oil, Saddam and his peoples had no economic incentive to aid terrorists. Now after 15 years of "no fly zones" and surgical precise bombs, Shock and Awe the country is rife with "insurgents."
The country is about to be split into three parts, There are fake news reports in Arab newspapers (which is really funny given how US press likes to point out that other countries reported things in state run media as if State run means "lie") and A-Q operatives have continued to bomb almost at will all over Europe.
By any measure, Iraq today is more a terrorist heaven than it was at any point prior to Gulf War 1. This isn't Ideology speaking. These are the "facts on the ground."
I'm not going to begin to defend Kerry et.al because I have no interest in defending democrats who don't have the balls to stand up for principle. Any shots they take from conservatives over thier statements and voting records are fair game, but that does not detract from the fact that Yes, the propaganda used to get the American people behind the war was either fabricated or conveniently "not mentioned." or in the case of Colin Powel's presentation to the UN flat out wrong (which Powell has admitted on national TV).
Lastly Phillips states:
Continuing to stay disengaged from the political debate plays into the hands of the terrorists, who have determined that the battle they must win is the public relations battle here in the United States. They believe Americans are weak and do not have the stomach for war. If they can wear down American political resolve, victory will be theirs. One of the keys to our ultimate victory, then, is that we maintain the support of the American people.
I swear that novel thinking must not be a part of the Black Conservative repertoir as this statement makes little sense. Most Americans have no problem with the US activities in Afghanistan because they believe that Osama Bin Ladin is there (or thereabouts) and that he is directly responsible (In terms of organization) for 9-11. However, the people are seeing Iraq for the money grab and lies that it is. Therefore it is a lie to say that Americans (or most anyone else) has a problem with war per se. However, when you say "they have X tonnes of WMD" and then can't show it, the people think you're dishonest and supposedly the "honest Abe" idea of American fairness (however false it is) comes into question globally and the main beneficiaries being Kellogg Brown and Root and other Halliburton, no bid contract holding companies paying Africans they import into Iraq $0.50 an hour (You'll note Phillips has nothing to say about that little point). No Phillip is wrong and needs to be honest with himself about it. That would be an interesting debate:
"Why Do I believe these white folks?"
"Oh they love me and pay me!!"
So Joseph C Phillips claims to want an Honest Debate About The War. This "honest debate" begins with:
Debate is good! Dissent may not be the province of America alone, but the right to dissent freely without repercussion is as American as apple pie. However, if our discourse is to bear fruit it must be responsible. We can’t have an honest debate so long as the issues are clouded with hysteria more appropriate to Hollywood science fiction.
Sounds good so far, even with the obligatory "Apple Pie" comment. I mean he's black, he could have said American as "Jim Crow" or something equally culturally relevant, but hey, It's Joseph. Next he has this:
Our incursion into Iraq was motivated by the belief that democracy and freedom as opposed to tyranny and instability would lay a foundation of peace that would lead to victory in the war on terror. That is it in a nutshell and those reasons have not changed. To their credit, more than a few Democrats supported the president. In 2002, Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proclaimed, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president’s approaching this in the right fashion.” That same year on NBC’s Meet The Press, New York Senator Hillary Clinton announced: “I can support the president, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interests of our national security …”
In an article in Time magazine, former President Bill Clinton articulates rather clearly that in the aftermath of 9/11/01, President Bush had a responsibility to make certain Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons didn’t fall into the hands of terrorists. If our president lied then there is a long list of Democratic leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy that also lied.
Wow. Two problems here. I'll deal with the second one first. Any parent would recognize the "if Bush lied so did..." argument as the ones that children who are fighting use. "He did it first!!!." Yes, folks, this is the level of argument that we're dealing with. But the first one is all "Apple Pie." This was not sold on Democracy and Freedom. I guess Phillip has had his head in the sand for so long that all the memos and news reports have completely passed him by. But let's take Phillip at his word. If the ultimate purpose for going into Iraq was to win the "War on Terror." then lets look at the facts "on the ground."
Saddam Hussein, a CIA stool, was put into power in Iraq in order to act as a "counter" to Iran. Saddam Hussien was disliked by the very leadership of Al-Q, the current ever present boogy monster, who wrote, as quoted in many publications. Hussein, the "tyrant" that he was had a Secular, modern country, where he kept the feuds between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds under control. We may disagree with the methods of that control, but none the less, Iraq was not a safe place for terrorists and Hussein had no love for or had no love from so called 'terrorists." Furthermore, while the country was able to make money off it's oil, Saddam and his peoples had no economic incentive to aid terrorists. Now after 15 years of "no fly zones" and surgical precise bombs, Shock and Awe the country is rife with "insurgents."
The country is about to be split into three parts, There are fake news reports in Arab newspapers (which is really funny given how US press likes to point out that other countries reported things in state run media as if State run means "lie") and A-Q operatives have continued to bomb almost at will all over Europe.
By any measure, Iraq today is more a terrorist heaven than it was at any point prior to Gulf War 1. This isn't Ideology speaking. These are the "facts on the ground."
I'm not going to begin to defend Kerry et.al because I have no interest in defending democrats who don't have the balls to stand up for principle. Any shots they take from conservatives over thier statements and voting records are fair game, but that does not detract from the fact that Yes, the propaganda used to get the American people behind the war was either fabricated or conveniently "not mentioned." or in the case of Colin Powel's presentation to the UN flat out wrong (which Powell has admitted on national TV).
Lastly Phillips states:
Continuing to stay disengaged from the political debate plays into the hands of the terrorists, who have determined that the battle they must win is the public relations battle here in the United States. They believe Americans are weak and do not have the stomach for war. If they can wear down American political resolve, victory will be theirs. One of the keys to our ultimate victory, then, is that we maintain the support of the American people.
I swear that novel thinking must not be a part of the Black Conservative repertoir as this statement makes little sense. Most Americans have no problem with the US activities in Afghanistan because they believe that Osama Bin Ladin is there (or thereabouts) and that he is directly responsible (In terms of organization) for 9-11. However, the people are seeing Iraq for the money grab and lies that it is. Therefore it is a lie to say that Americans (or most anyone else) has a problem with war per se. However, when you say "they have X tonnes of WMD" and then can't show it, the people think you're dishonest and supposedly the "honest Abe" idea of American fairness (however false it is) comes into question globally and the main beneficiaries being Kellogg Brown and Root and other Halliburton, no bid contract holding companies paying Africans they import into Iraq $0.50 an hour (You'll note Phillips has nothing to say about that little point). No Phillip is wrong and needs to be honest with himself about it. That would be an interesting debate:
"Why Do I believe these white folks?"
"Oh they love me and pay me!!"
Conflicted On Tookie
Tookie Williams the founder of the Cripts gang is set to be executed for a crime he says he didn't commit. If he did commit the crime many supporters say that since he has changed his ways, and is nearly 60 years old, his death sentance ought to be commuted to life imprisonment.
If you are against the Death Sentance then you'r position is clear: Tookie must have clemency. If you are not against the death penalty and you're black and 'conscious" then you have a problem. See as a person aware of African History one cannot say that opposition to the death penalty is "African." In fact in terms of African-American culture, the death penalty is something many blacks agree with. The reasons for this are multiple but are currently based on the consequences with the 2% criminal element that manages to make the lives for the 30% of black folks who are poor, miserable, and the 60% who are not,shake their heads upon seeing that 2% on the news. It is also the case the African Americans, specifically those who grew up getting spanked, see that the consequences for such gang activity is death. I bring up spanking because the over-arching justification for such behavoir is that the pain inflicted as a child will act as a deterent to later bad behavior which may lead to crime. A taste of the punishment if you will.
But being conscious black person you realize that if the death penalty was inacted back in say th 50's against one Malcolm Little we would not have the hero Malcolm X. See Malcolm Little was a criminal thug. He was the redhead devil in prison. It was the prison time was what lead Malcolm to the NOI and his transformation to Malcolm X. When we agree with the death penalty (disregarding the un-equal way it is implemented) we agree to end the lives of potential Malcolm X's. The issue here is redemption. Do we as a people believe in redemption? If so then we have to ask if Tookie Williams has been redeemed is he a danger to our society? Can he be a force for good in our society? If we agree that he is no longer a threat, that he ican be a force for good, then should he be executed? Should he even be in jail? Let's be real here, Most violent crime, for which tookie was jailed for, is committed by younger people. While the familty of the deceased would like for Tookie to continue to "pay" for his crime, why is incarceration, where he cannot make direct amends for hid crime, the only means for his "payment?"
Thus is the conflict, Do we hold Tookie to his gang creed and let him die and be an example to young gang members of where they will end up? Or do we show the youth that they can change thier lives and society will recognize that change? It's a hard question if you don't oppose the death penalty.
Tookie Williams the founder of the Cripts gang is set to be executed for a crime he says he didn't commit. If he did commit the crime many supporters say that since he has changed his ways, and is nearly 60 years old, his death sentance ought to be commuted to life imprisonment.
If you are against the Death Sentance then you'r position is clear: Tookie must have clemency. If you are not against the death penalty and you're black and 'conscious" then you have a problem. See as a person aware of African History one cannot say that opposition to the death penalty is "African." In fact in terms of African-American culture, the death penalty is something many blacks agree with. The reasons for this are multiple but are currently based on the consequences with the 2% criminal element that manages to make the lives for the 30% of black folks who are poor, miserable, and the 60% who are not,shake their heads upon seeing that 2% on the news. It is also the case the African Americans, specifically those who grew up getting spanked, see that the consequences for such gang activity is death. I bring up spanking because the over-arching justification for such behavoir is that the pain inflicted as a child will act as a deterent to later bad behavior which may lead to crime. A taste of the punishment if you will.
But being conscious black person you realize that if the death penalty was inacted back in say th 50's against one Malcolm Little we would not have the hero Malcolm X. See Malcolm Little was a criminal thug. He was the redhead devil in prison. It was the prison time was what lead Malcolm to the NOI and his transformation to Malcolm X. When we agree with the death penalty (disregarding the un-equal way it is implemented) we agree to end the lives of potential Malcolm X's. The issue here is redemption. Do we as a people believe in redemption? If so then we have to ask if Tookie Williams has been redeemed is he a danger to our society? Can he be a force for good in our society? If we agree that he is no longer a threat, that he ican be a force for good, then should he be executed? Should he even be in jail? Let's be real here, Most violent crime, for which tookie was jailed for, is committed by younger people. While the familty of the deceased would like for Tookie to continue to "pay" for his crime, why is incarceration, where he cannot make direct amends for hid crime, the only means for his "payment?"
Thus is the conflict, Do we hold Tookie to his gang creed and let him die and be an example to young gang members of where they will end up? Or do we show the youth that they can change thier lives and society will recognize that change? It's a hard question if you don't oppose the death penalty.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
France Revisited
Ok, so I was having a Van Sertima moment here. Let me start off with a quote from James Baldwin's Nobody Knows My Name written 3 years before The Fire Next Time The latter was repeatedly quoted in articles sympathetic to the outbreak. I have often been more interested in Baldwins' prior writing. Perhaps he had a change of views between the two writings though it is entirely possible that the thoughts in both are complementary. I do hope so because then Baldwin and I would be on the same page in our overall view of the situation in France as it regards the Africans there. Baldwin writes in his essay "Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter From Harlem":
There is a housing project standing now where the house in which we grew up once stood... when we reach the end of this long block, we find ourselves on wide, filthy, hostile Fifth Avenue, facing that project which hangs over the avenue like a monument to the folly, and cowardice, of good intentions...I am talking about those who are left, and I am principally talking about the young. What are they doing? Many..are "moslems" by affiliation or sympathy, that is to say that they are united by nothing more-and nothing less-than a hatred of the white world and all it's works...Negroes do not own General Motors or RCA or the A&P, nor, indeed, do they own more than a wholly insufficient fraction of anything else in Harlem. There are those who are simply sitting on their stoops, "stoned," animated for a moment only, and hideously, by the approach of someone who may lend them money for a "fix." Or by the approach of someone from whome they can purchase it,one of the shrewd ones, on the way to prison or just coming out.
And the others, who have avoided all of these deaths, get up in the morning and go downtown to meet "the man."
The projects in Harlem are hated. They are hated almost as much as policemen, and this is saying a great deal. And they are hated for the same reason: both reveal, unbearably, the real attitude of the white world, no matter how many liberal speeches and made, no matter how many lofty editorials are written, no matter how many civil-rights commissions are set up.
The projects are hideous, of course, there being a loaw, apparently respected throughout the world, that popular housing shall be as cheerless as a prison. They are..colorless, bleak, high and revolting.
Harlem got it's first project, Riverton-which is now, naturally a slum-about twelve years ago...Harlem wathced Riverton go up, therefore, in the most violent bitterness of spriti, and hated it long before the builders arrived, they began hating it long before the builders arrived...And they had scarcly moved in, naturally, before they began smashing windows, defacing walls, urinating in the elevators, and fornicating in the playgrounds...Other people were delighted to be able to pont to proof positive that nothing could be done to better the lot of colored people, They were, and are, right inb one respect: That nothing can be done as long as they are treated like colored people. The people of Harlem know they are living there because white people fo not think they are good enough to live anywhere else. No amount of "improvement" can sweeten this fact. Whatever money is now earmarked to improve this, or any other ghetto, might as well be burnt. A ghetto can be improved in one way only: out of existance.
Baldwin continues with descriptions of the policing in the ghettos. Now the purpose for me bringing this up is that the NY Times posted an article entitled Revolting High Risesthat discusses the high rises that house most of the poor "non-French."
The Swiss architect Le Corbusier, as Francophobes have been more than ready to explain, bears some of the blame for both. His designs inspired many of the suburbs where the riots of October and November began. In fact, he inspired the very practice of housing the urban poor by building up instead of out. Soaring apartments, he thought, would finally give sunlight and fresh air to city laborers, who had been trapped in narrow and fetid back streets since the dawn of urbanization. But high-rise apartments mixed badly with something poor communities generate in profusion: groups of young, armed, desperate males. Anyone who could control the elevator bank (and, when that became too terrifying to use, the graffiti-covered stairwells) could hold hundreds of families ransom.
A goode example of this is the movie New Jack City. To show the accuracy of Baldwin's words the article states:
In the course of the October uprising, French observers called this slum-based sense of place a "nationalisme de quartier." It is a problem. Residents of some of the most dismal projects have often proved unwilling to relocate, even when the government has promised to move them into much nicer places. Perhaps they have grown attached to their dangerous homes and neighbors. It is more likely that they're leery about accepting the promises of any government that once stuck them in such a depressing spot to begin with.
Lets look at the real solution then. If the French are unwilling to let Africans be "French." And I don't expect them too, then it would appear that the residents of the "projects" will have to change thier attitude towards where they live. Clearly if in 1961 Baldwin can write that which is still true in 2005, then there needs to be a different response and that response needs to come from the leadership since the gut reactions of the people only lead them to do that which they think is new and effective. It is equally true in France that the French (and like it or not, French = white) build these buildings to separate out the non-French and it is equally true that the non-French own none of the major businesses in France and probably never will; then the African in France must do something different. In fact the African worldwide must do something different.
Ok, so I was having a Van Sertima moment here. Let me start off with a quote from James Baldwin's Nobody Knows My Name written 3 years before The Fire Next Time The latter was repeatedly quoted in articles sympathetic to the outbreak. I have often been more interested in Baldwins' prior writing. Perhaps he had a change of views between the two writings though it is entirely possible that the thoughts in both are complementary. I do hope so because then Baldwin and I would be on the same page in our overall view of the situation in France as it regards the Africans there. Baldwin writes in his essay "Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter From Harlem":
There is a housing project standing now where the house in which we grew up once stood... when we reach the end of this long block, we find ourselves on wide, filthy, hostile Fifth Avenue, facing that project which hangs over the avenue like a monument to the folly, and cowardice, of good intentions...I am talking about those who are left, and I am principally talking about the young. What are they doing? Many..are "moslems" by affiliation or sympathy, that is to say that they are united by nothing more-and nothing less-than a hatred of the white world and all it's works...Negroes do not own General Motors or RCA or the A&P, nor, indeed, do they own more than a wholly insufficient fraction of anything else in Harlem. There are those who are simply sitting on their stoops, "stoned," animated for a moment only, and hideously, by the approach of someone who may lend them money for a "fix." Or by the approach of someone from whome they can purchase it,one of the shrewd ones, on the way to prison or just coming out.
And the others, who have avoided all of these deaths, get up in the morning and go downtown to meet "the man."
The projects in Harlem are hated. They are hated almost as much as policemen, and this is saying a great deal. And they are hated for the same reason: both reveal, unbearably, the real attitude of the white world, no matter how many liberal speeches and made, no matter how many lofty editorials are written, no matter how many civil-rights commissions are set up.
The projects are hideous, of course, there being a loaw, apparently respected throughout the world, that popular housing shall be as cheerless as a prison. They are..colorless, bleak, high and revolting.
Harlem got it's first project, Riverton-which is now, naturally a slum-about twelve years ago...Harlem wathced Riverton go up, therefore, in the most violent bitterness of spriti, and hated it long before the builders arrived, they began hating it long before the builders arrived...And they had scarcly moved in, naturally, before they began smashing windows, defacing walls, urinating in the elevators, and fornicating in the playgrounds...Other people were delighted to be able to pont to proof positive that nothing could be done to better the lot of colored people, They were, and are, right inb one respect: That nothing can be done as long as they are treated like colored people. The people of Harlem know they are living there because white people fo not think they are good enough to live anywhere else. No amount of "improvement" can sweeten this fact. Whatever money is now earmarked to improve this, or any other ghetto, might as well be burnt. A ghetto can be improved in one way only: out of existance.
Baldwin continues with descriptions of the policing in the ghettos. Now the purpose for me bringing this up is that the NY Times posted an article entitled Revolting High Risesthat discusses the high rises that house most of the poor "non-French."
The Swiss architect Le Corbusier, as Francophobes have been more than ready to explain, bears some of the blame for both. His designs inspired many of the suburbs where the riots of October and November began. In fact, he inspired the very practice of housing the urban poor by building up instead of out. Soaring apartments, he thought, would finally give sunlight and fresh air to city laborers, who had been trapped in narrow and fetid back streets since the dawn of urbanization. But high-rise apartments mixed badly with something poor communities generate in profusion: groups of young, armed, desperate males. Anyone who could control the elevator bank (and, when that became too terrifying to use, the graffiti-covered stairwells) could hold hundreds of families ransom.
A goode example of this is the movie New Jack City. To show the accuracy of Baldwin's words the article states:
In the course of the October uprising, French observers called this slum-based sense of place a "nationalisme de quartier." It is a problem. Residents of some of the most dismal projects have often proved unwilling to relocate, even when the government has promised to move them into much nicer places. Perhaps they have grown attached to their dangerous homes and neighbors. It is more likely that they're leery about accepting the promises of any government that once stuck them in such a depressing spot to begin with.
Lets look at the real solution then. If the French are unwilling to let Africans be "French." And I don't expect them too, then it would appear that the residents of the "projects" will have to change thier attitude towards where they live. Clearly if in 1961 Baldwin can write that which is still true in 2005, then there needs to be a different response and that response needs to come from the leadership since the gut reactions of the people only lead them to do that which they think is new and effective. It is equally true in France that the French (and like it or not, French = white) build these buildings to separate out the non-French and it is equally true that the non-French own none of the major businesses in France and probably never will; then the African in France must do something different. In fact the African worldwide must do something different.
Thomas(s) Sowell
So this evening I was eating dinner when I spotted Thomas Sowell on the Fox News Channel. I don't usually have that channel on but there it was and Mr. Sowell was being interviewed by one of the white men who inhabit that dark corner of the cable system. Thomas Sowell was busy grinning and making comments such as is desire to see liberals shipped off and that Environmentalists are nutty. I suggest that Mr Sowell be made to go to a Chinese city during one of their bad smog days and be forced to exercize without a mask. I surely bet that his attitude towards environmentalists would change. But his opinions are not the real subject of this piece as I have disected many of his arguements in these pages. No doubt that the man is intelligent. I do believe in giving those who I may disagree with their props when they deserve it. What gives Sowell more credibility than say a Rev Jesse Peterson, is that Sowell does research. Now doing research doesn't make one right, but it does up the ante when having a discussion since a position must be proven by statement of facts and thus a position may be shown to be incorrect by discussing said facts. This is different from those who have opinions but nothing to back them up. They believe what they want and there's no real point in having a discussion since anyone can believe whatever they want since belief does not require fact. But I'm stil off the point of this post. The real point was this white man's utter facination with Sowell. Everything that Sowell said was like Judaic Mannah from heaven. Even when Mr. Sowell said things that simply made no sense, there was the grinning white man. This underscores the charge that is oft made against so called black conservatives; that they are lackeys for white folks, specifically white supremacist type white folks. And let's be clear here, there are liberal lackeys too. They are often lackeys to the paternal and maternalist white folks out there who get emotional over "I have a Dream" speeches.
At one point Mr. Sowell said that he rarely gets criticism from "black leaders." he claimed that they stay quiet and then resurface "three months later." He also said that Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are telling black youths that they should be victims and that they have nothing but roadblocks ahead of them and they should be defeatist. It's interesting that Mr. Sowell, with all his research ability was unable to point to specific instances where such a sentiment was stated. Which is really important. Black Conservatives, by and large operate as black faces for white ideology of black thought. They are there to legitimize the thoughts of whites who think in such ways by putting a black face on the idea.
All in all it was silly "interview." the white man wanted to introduce Mr. Sowell to America. Already know him, please leave him home next time.
So this evening I was eating dinner when I spotted Thomas Sowell on the Fox News Channel. I don't usually have that channel on but there it was and Mr. Sowell was being interviewed by one of the white men who inhabit that dark corner of the cable system. Thomas Sowell was busy grinning and making comments such as is desire to see liberals shipped off and that Environmentalists are nutty. I suggest that Mr Sowell be made to go to a Chinese city during one of their bad smog days and be forced to exercize without a mask. I surely bet that his attitude towards environmentalists would change. But his opinions are not the real subject of this piece as I have disected many of his arguements in these pages. No doubt that the man is intelligent. I do believe in giving those who I may disagree with their props when they deserve it. What gives Sowell more credibility than say a Rev Jesse Peterson, is that Sowell does research. Now doing research doesn't make one right, but it does up the ante when having a discussion since a position must be proven by statement of facts and thus a position may be shown to be incorrect by discussing said facts. This is different from those who have opinions but nothing to back them up. They believe what they want and there's no real point in having a discussion since anyone can believe whatever they want since belief does not require fact. But I'm stil off the point of this post. The real point was this white man's utter facination with Sowell. Everything that Sowell said was like Judaic Mannah from heaven. Even when Mr. Sowell said things that simply made no sense, there was the grinning white man. This underscores the charge that is oft made against so called black conservatives; that they are lackeys for white folks, specifically white supremacist type white folks. And let's be clear here, there are liberal lackeys too. They are often lackeys to the paternal and maternalist white folks out there who get emotional over "I have a Dream" speeches.
At one point Mr. Sowell said that he rarely gets criticism from "black leaders." he claimed that they stay quiet and then resurface "three months later." He also said that Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are telling black youths that they should be victims and that they have nothing but roadblocks ahead of them and they should be defeatist. It's interesting that Mr. Sowell, with all his research ability was unable to point to specific instances where such a sentiment was stated. Which is really important. Black Conservatives, by and large operate as black faces for white ideology of black thought. They are there to legitimize the thoughts of whites who think in such ways by putting a black face on the idea.
All in all it was silly "interview." the white man wanted to introduce Mr. Sowell to America. Already know him, please leave him home next time.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Of Padilla and Black Folks
Now you're reading the title and trying to figure out how the heck I connect the situation of Jose Padilla (the so called dirty bomber) and the state of Black folks. Well here it is. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled U.S. Indicts Padilla After 3 Years in Pentagon Custody in which we learn:
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as an "enemy combatant" suspected of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack in this country, has been indicted on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas.
A federal grand jury in Miami returned the indictment against Padilla and four others. While the charges allege Padilla was part of a terrorism conspiracy, they do not include the government's earlier allegations that he planned to carry out attacks in the United States.
Never mind the problem that Padilla was incarcerated (they call it "detained") for 3 years on suspicion of plotting to harm US citizens. We've said clearly that if the US govt. indeed had proof of such a thing Padilla would have been prosecuted straight away. This only confirms that the Govt. had no case against Padilla and therefore had to make up some other "crime" in order keep him incarcerated..I mean detained.
So what do they base this "planned to carry out" charge?
Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.
Although the Justice Department has said that Padilla was readying attacks in the United States, the charges against him and four others allege they were part of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country and provide material support to terrorists abroad.
See the very idea that Padilla had "trained" in camps means that he was going to carry out some deed or so the logic goes. Hmmmm. Ok. As is the case with a growing numbers of laws in the US, possible intent to commit a crime is enought to arrest someone. Never mind that no crime was actually committed. In fact anyone who has taken serious thought of killing thier boss and has a knife in their possession should be liable to be "detained" under the thinking here. This is the very reason why I detest "Hate crime" legislation. A person should be convicted for thier actions and not thier thoughts. That a Nazi hates my black behind should not be illegal. The Nazi has the right to think whatever he or she wants. When the Nazi attaches me to the back of a pickup and drags me to peices, the Nazi has committed murder and should be convicted of said crime. You hate black folks, let nature give you a bleeding ulcer.
Back on topic though. Padilla is being incarcerated..I mean..detained due to suspected association with those who wish to kill people. Ok Should we follow that logic then we should examine the following. Alternet posted an article entitled: Hate Crimes in Prison in which we find:
While the precise number of Aryan Brotherhood members and associates is not known, the gang has chapters in virtually every major state and federal prison in the country. Estimates of AB's total strength vary widely, but nearly all exceed 15,000 members and associates nationwide, with roughly half in prison and half out.
"You gain ranks by battles, by 'missions,' not all of it locked up," explained tree 1488. "Brothers grow as close as vets do when they go into battle fighting for a common cause. We are there for each other even on the outside. I have a high ranking it has taken me nearly seven years of missions to earn."
The Oklahoma Aryan Brotherhood member went on the explain to the white nationalists on Stormfront that when he was first released from prison, "my neighbors on the outside were taken aback by my tattoos at first -- sleeved out arms with shoulder caps that read 'Aryan Honor,'" but that he gradually won them over with his gardening and baking acumen. "I give them fresh vegetables when they are in season, cakes and so forth. I clue them in to white nationalism if they show an interest. Aryan Honor is the credo I live by."
So let's get this straight: Padilla may have went to Pakistan and Maybe Afghanistan. He may be motivated to kill "foreigners" But there is no proof that he has done so. Yet Aryan Nation members and the like, who clearly are in organizations intent on killing black people and have done so are allowed to walk around and not be detainied. Who exactly does the US government care about here? I think Kanye West is getting close to the answer.
I find it hypocritical and dangerous that members of a known terrorist organization are free to walk around until they actually kill a black man, woman or child, while Jose Padilla who has done nothing but take a long plane trip and possibly got the best workout regimin in his life, but committed no acts of violence against anybody has been locked up for 3 years and is being indicted becuase he may pose a threat to "foreigners."
Yeah,
Of Padilla and Black Folks.
Now you're reading the title and trying to figure out how the heck I connect the situation of Jose Padilla (the so called dirty bomber) and the state of Black folks. Well here it is. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled U.S. Indicts Padilla After 3 Years in Pentagon Custody in which we learn:
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as an "enemy combatant" suspected of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack in this country, has been indicted on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas.
A federal grand jury in Miami returned the indictment against Padilla and four others. While the charges allege Padilla was part of a terrorism conspiracy, they do not include the government's earlier allegations that he planned to carry out attacks in the United States.
Never mind the problem that Padilla was incarcerated (they call it "detained") for 3 years on suspicion of plotting to harm US citizens. We've said clearly that if the US govt. indeed had proof of such a thing Padilla would have been prosecuted straight away. This only confirms that the Govt. had no case against Padilla and therefore had to make up some other "crime" in order keep him incarcerated..I mean detained.
So what do they base this "planned to carry out" charge?
Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.
Although the Justice Department has said that Padilla was readying attacks in the United States, the charges against him and four others allege they were part of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country and provide material support to terrorists abroad.
See the very idea that Padilla had "trained" in camps means that he was going to carry out some deed or so the logic goes. Hmmmm. Ok. As is the case with a growing numbers of laws in the US, possible intent to commit a crime is enought to arrest someone. Never mind that no crime was actually committed. In fact anyone who has taken serious thought of killing thier boss and has a knife in their possession should be liable to be "detained" under the thinking here. This is the very reason why I detest "Hate crime" legislation. A person should be convicted for thier actions and not thier thoughts. That a Nazi hates my black behind should not be illegal. The Nazi has the right to think whatever he or she wants. When the Nazi attaches me to the back of a pickup and drags me to peices, the Nazi has committed murder and should be convicted of said crime. You hate black folks, let nature give you a bleeding ulcer.
Back on topic though. Padilla is being incarcerated..I mean..detained due to suspected association with those who wish to kill people. Ok Should we follow that logic then we should examine the following. Alternet posted an article entitled: Hate Crimes in Prison in which we find:
While the precise number of Aryan Brotherhood members and associates is not known, the gang has chapters in virtually every major state and federal prison in the country. Estimates of AB's total strength vary widely, but nearly all exceed 15,000 members and associates nationwide, with roughly half in prison and half out.
"You gain ranks by battles, by 'missions,' not all of it locked up," explained tree 1488. "Brothers grow as close as vets do when they go into battle fighting for a common cause. We are there for each other even on the outside. I have a high ranking it has taken me nearly seven years of missions to earn."
The Oklahoma Aryan Brotherhood member went on the explain to the white nationalists on Stormfront that when he was first released from prison, "my neighbors on the outside were taken aback by my tattoos at first -- sleeved out arms with shoulder caps that read 'Aryan Honor,'" but that he gradually won them over with his gardening and baking acumen. "I give them fresh vegetables when they are in season, cakes and so forth. I clue them in to white nationalism if they show an interest. Aryan Honor is the credo I live by."
So let's get this straight: Padilla may have went to Pakistan and Maybe Afghanistan. He may be motivated to kill "foreigners" But there is no proof that he has done so. Yet Aryan Nation members and the like, who clearly are in organizations intent on killing black people and have done so are allowed to walk around and not be detainied. Who exactly does the US government care about here? I think Kanye West is getting close to the answer.
I find it hypocritical and dangerous that members of a known terrorist organization are free to walk around until they actually kill a black man, woman or child, while Jose Padilla who has done nothing but take a long plane trip and possibly got the best workout regimin in his life, but committed no acts of violence against anybody has been locked up for 3 years and is being indicted becuase he may pose a threat to "foreigners."
Yeah,
Of Padilla and Black Folks.
Friday, November 18, 2005
the Lie of Iraqi Jihadists
While these pages are usually critical of the US position in iraq, and it still is, every now and then some things happen in Iraq that do nothing to bolster the case against the US involvement in Iraq. Today the NY Times had anm article entitled: Bombers Kill at Least 65 Inside Two Shiite Mosques in Iraq
where we find:
BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 - At least 65 people died in the Eastern Iraqi town of Khanaqin today after suicide bombers detonated explosives inside two Shiite mosques during Friday prayers.
A mosque, also refered to as a Maskid means a "house of prayer." Simply put a place where Muslims go to commune with God. It is highly Ironic that the main wish of Jihadists, the elimination of the "great satan" that is the West due to it's decadence, would resort to bombing a Mosque. If I may also remind the readers that it was an errant(?) canister of teargas that went into a Mosque in France that extnded the riots in France.
We the, African that has rejected both Christianity and Islam, know that neither of these parties have respect for places of worship of "non-believers" as such it is clearly now a case of chickens coming home to roost that Mosques are now fair game to the so called guardians of Islam.
It has been my postion since 1992 that the very existamce of an ideology of prosylization in a religion is dangerous eventually you get people who feel so strongly about being "right" that they will objectify those whome they believe to be wrong (with great incentive too). Once that happens it is not to long before people are ready to kill. Islam has an extra problem in that killing is codified into it's ideology. Though it is couched in self-defence, it is there. it is very easy to claim self-defence of defence of the Ummah against non-believers. Which is what we have here. It is no doubt that the bombers were Sunnis. It is no doubt that the Shiite Muslims were objectified by the Sunni bombers as being not "true" believers and since they can be said to have sided with "the enemy" they are fair game. Very simply path of logic and a clear example of why religion and politics/government should not be mixed.
While these pages are usually critical of the US position in iraq, and it still is, every now and then some things happen in Iraq that do nothing to bolster the case against the US involvement in Iraq. Today the NY Times had anm article entitled: Bombers Kill at Least 65 Inside Two Shiite Mosques in Iraq
where we find:
BAGHDAD, Nov. 18 - At least 65 people died in the Eastern Iraqi town of Khanaqin today after suicide bombers detonated explosives inside two Shiite mosques during Friday prayers.
A mosque, also refered to as a Maskid means a "house of prayer." Simply put a place where Muslims go to commune with God. It is highly Ironic that the main wish of Jihadists, the elimination of the "great satan" that is the West due to it's decadence, would resort to bombing a Mosque. If I may also remind the readers that it was an errant(?) canister of teargas that went into a Mosque in France that extnded the riots in France.
We the, African that has rejected both Christianity and Islam, know that neither of these parties have respect for places of worship of "non-believers" as such it is clearly now a case of chickens coming home to roost that Mosques are now fair game to the so called guardians of Islam.
It has been my postion since 1992 that the very existamce of an ideology of prosylization in a religion is dangerous eventually you get people who feel so strongly about being "right" that they will objectify those whome they believe to be wrong (with great incentive too). Once that happens it is not to long before people are ready to kill. Islam has an extra problem in that killing is codified into it's ideology. Though it is couched in self-defence, it is there. it is very easy to claim self-defence of defence of the Ummah against non-believers. Which is what we have here. It is no doubt that the bombers were Sunnis. It is no doubt that the Shiite Muslims were objectified by the Sunni bombers as being not "true" believers and since they can be said to have sided with "the enemy" they are fair game. Very simply path of logic and a clear example of why religion and politics/government should not be mixed.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Yet More On France
Diana Johnstone has an excellent article on the situation in France published in CounterPunch, Which echo's the root of my position on the matter:
quotes:
Ironically, in this crucial case the deaths were the result of fear rather than of direct police brutality. This widespread fear of police reflects gratuitous and heavy handed police harassment, but there is also the undisputed fact that in areas with 40% unemployment and large numbers of school dropouts, there has been a proliferation of drug dealing and various forms of petty crime, often in the form of forcing school kids to surrender such items as cell phones. Police toughness has had no visible success in stemming such activities...
...They are a minority in their communities, and their destructive action is overwhelmingly condemned within those communities, whose members are the ones whose cars or schools or buses are being burned. Nevertheless, there is considerable sympathy in these communities for the anger and hopelessness underlying this explosion of violence. After several nights of such troubles, parents and other citizens are organizing in various neighborhoods to dissuade kids from violence...
...The apartment blocks of the banlieue of French cities are similar to those surrounding cities in most of Europe. They were part of the rapid urbanization that occurred during the economic prosperity of the 1960s. They were not built to be "ghettos" but to provide decent housing to the waves of immigrants, both from the countryside and from abroad, drawn by industrial employment. They replaced shanty towns and relieved the pressure on inner city neighborhoods, where working class families were crowded into unhealthy flats with no private toilet. For working people, the banlieue apartments are much more spacious and well equipped than those in affordable neighborhoods of Paris.
There are two things wrong with them. One is aesthetic: they lack the charm of the city, they are monotonous, and they are far away from the pleasures of urban life. But what has turned them into "ghettoes" is the deindustrialization of the past decades. The nearby factories have shut down, and the sons and grandsons of factory workers are jobless. It is easier for those with French names and French complexions ...
I come back to the economic factor. Dominique de Villepin, in competition with Sarkozy, has taken a more humanist line: restoration of social aids to the banlieue previously instituted by the Socialist government, plus yet another program for job-creation. But since such measures have been taken before without notable effect, one can doubt their efficacy now.
I would conclude by acknowledging that for ruling politicians, the situation is without immediate solution. Order may be restored, subsidies may be granted to neighborhood associations, but no short-term measure can solve the basic problem: the deep rupture between the "winners" and the "losers" in a cutthroat game of capitalist competition.[our emphasis]
Link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone11092005.html
Diana Johnstone has an excellent article on the situation in France published in CounterPunch, Which echo's the root of my position on the matter:
quotes:
Ironically, in this crucial case the deaths were the result of fear rather than of direct police brutality. This widespread fear of police reflects gratuitous and heavy handed police harassment, but there is also the undisputed fact that in areas with 40% unemployment and large numbers of school dropouts, there has been a proliferation of drug dealing and various forms of petty crime, often in the form of forcing school kids to surrender such items as cell phones. Police toughness has had no visible success in stemming such activities...
...They are a minority in their communities, and their destructive action is overwhelmingly condemned within those communities, whose members are the ones whose cars or schools or buses are being burned. Nevertheless, there is considerable sympathy in these communities for the anger and hopelessness underlying this explosion of violence. After several nights of such troubles, parents and other citizens are organizing in various neighborhoods to dissuade kids from violence...
...The apartment blocks of the banlieue of French cities are similar to those surrounding cities in most of Europe. They were part of the rapid urbanization that occurred during the economic prosperity of the 1960s. They were not built to be "ghettos" but to provide decent housing to the waves of immigrants, both from the countryside and from abroad, drawn by industrial employment. They replaced shanty towns and relieved the pressure on inner city neighborhoods, where working class families were crowded into unhealthy flats with no private toilet. For working people, the banlieue apartments are much more spacious and well equipped than those in affordable neighborhoods of Paris.
There are two things wrong with them. One is aesthetic: they lack the charm of the city, they are monotonous, and they are far away from the pleasures of urban life. But what has turned them into "ghettoes" is the deindustrialization of the past decades. The nearby factories have shut down, and the sons and grandsons of factory workers are jobless. It is easier for those with French names and French complexions ...
I come back to the economic factor. Dominique de Villepin, in competition with Sarkozy, has taken a more humanist line: restoration of social aids to the banlieue previously instituted by the Socialist government, plus yet another program for job-creation. But since such measures have been taken before without notable effect, one can doubt their efficacy now.
I would conclude by acknowledging that for ruling politicians, the situation is without immediate solution. Order may be restored, subsidies may be granted to neighborhood associations, but no short-term measure can solve the basic problem: the deep rupture between the "winners" and the "losers" in a cutthroat game of capitalist competition.[our emphasis]
Link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone11092005.html
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
More on France
The last post on the situation in France prompted negative feedback from a reader. You should read the comment and response in the post. I did however feel prompted to discuss one point that the reader made since it has greater meaning in terms of Garveyism and "Consciousness." Garvey is famouns for saying (paraphrased):
"Take all opportunities you find (in white countries) but the best bet for African progress is to create a state in Africa."
he also is known for saying (again paraphrased):
"When the white man finds himself in hard times who do you think he will employ, you or his own."
The reader made a side comment about what conscious "French-African" intellectuals and writers woudld write in regards to African-Americans. Given that Garveyism holds the above quotes as bedrock ideology i have to question the "consciousness" of the ideology that is largely to beg the white French for jobs. Mind you, there are all manner of social stuggle that one may ascribe to. If one believes that the French owe thier citizens x,y and z then by all means the logical progression of that thought leads to protesting the government for jobs or other forms of relief.
The Garveyite would say that since the French Government provides free education and healthcare, that one should take advantage of that. But given that we know the French to be racist, and we simply don't expect them to change anytime in the near future, the blacks in that country ought to be looking back to thier homelands.
It also strikes me as odd that blacks in France hold the white French government to a higher standard of behaviour than they do or did of thier own homeland(s). Truely if some of this behavior had happened in say Cote D'Ivoir there would be a lot of dead people right now. But this is the exact problem with the African global community we can spot and react againts the very real bad things that whites do to us, but will not take responsibility for the very real bad things we do to each other.
I do think that the African community does have a valid arguement outside of the "give us jobs" discussion. The fact that the police apparently have the authority to stop people on the streets for "ID" was a problem waiting to explode. Mind you such laws also exist in the US though like the one in New Jersey can only happen between certain times of day (well actually night). It is apparet that the two boys killed were killed while fleeing police they presumed were going to ask them for papers which could possibly lead to harrassment. They went and sat in a transformer. Therefore the police were not the direct cause of the deaths. We know this because a third boy said as much (assuming he was not coerced into this statement).
Let me also point out more specifics about the situation of blacks in France. the NY Times pointed out in an article entitled France Has an Underclass, but Its Roots are Still Shallow:
That is one foundation of the fear among some experts that a structural underclass is emerging. Already, French-Arabs and French-Africans make up the majority of inmates in France's prisons, just as minorities make up a vastly disproportionate part of the American prison population.
That is one foundation of the fear among some experts that a structural underclass is emerging. Already, French-Arabs and French-Africans make up the majority of inmates in France's prisons, just as minorities make up a vastly disproportionate part of the American prison population.
Note that the latter problem is one of private business. Now in the US you have had roughly 30 years of Affirmative Action which is partially responsible for the rise of a black middle class but which has done squat to deal with the high encarceration rates or the fact of above average unemployment. Thus I expect that even if the French Government approves of some sort of Affirmatove Action, it will not do anything for unskilled immigrants or others at the margins of French Society.
Lastly, No, let me repeat: NO capitalist country has "full employment." There exists no such thing in a Capitalist economy. So who exactly do we expect to end up on the unemployment line more often? Who then will we expect to end up in the prisons more often?
I'm not saying it's right. I am saying that it's real and the rioting won't change the larger picture much as it hasn't changed it in the US.
The last post on the situation in France prompted negative feedback from a reader. You should read the comment and response in the post. I did however feel prompted to discuss one point that the reader made since it has greater meaning in terms of Garveyism and "Consciousness." Garvey is famouns for saying (paraphrased):
"Take all opportunities you find (in white countries) but the best bet for African progress is to create a state in Africa."
he also is known for saying (again paraphrased):
"When the white man finds himself in hard times who do you think he will employ, you or his own."
The reader made a side comment about what conscious "French-African" intellectuals and writers woudld write in regards to African-Americans. Given that Garveyism holds the above quotes as bedrock ideology i have to question the "consciousness" of the ideology that is largely to beg the white French for jobs. Mind you, there are all manner of social stuggle that one may ascribe to. If one believes that the French owe thier citizens x,y and z then by all means the logical progression of that thought leads to protesting the government for jobs or other forms of relief.
The Garveyite would say that since the French Government provides free education and healthcare, that one should take advantage of that. But given that we know the French to be racist, and we simply don't expect them to change anytime in the near future, the blacks in that country ought to be looking back to thier homelands.
It also strikes me as odd that blacks in France hold the white French government to a higher standard of behaviour than they do or did of thier own homeland(s). Truely if some of this behavior had happened in say Cote D'Ivoir there would be a lot of dead people right now. But this is the exact problem with the African global community we can spot and react againts the very real bad things that whites do to us, but will not take responsibility for the very real bad things we do to each other.
I do think that the African community does have a valid arguement outside of the "give us jobs" discussion. The fact that the police apparently have the authority to stop people on the streets for "ID" was a problem waiting to explode. Mind you such laws also exist in the US though like the one in New Jersey can only happen between certain times of day (well actually night). It is apparet that the two boys killed were killed while fleeing police they presumed were going to ask them for papers which could possibly lead to harrassment. They went and sat in a transformer. Therefore the police were not the direct cause of the deaths. We know this because a third boy said as much (assuming he was not coerced into this statement).
Let me also point out more specifics about the situation of blacks in France. the NY Times pointed out in an article entitled France Has an Underclass, but Its Roots are Still Shallow:
That is one foundation of the fear among some experts that a structural underclass is emerging. Already, French-Arabs and French-Africans make up the majority of inmates in France's prisons, just as minorities make up a vastly disproportionate part of the American prison population.
That is one foundation of the fear among some experts that a structural underclass is emerging. Already, French-Arabs and French-Africans make up the majority of inmates in France's prisons, just as minorities make up a vastly disproportionate part of the American prison population.
Note that the latter problem is one of private business. Now in the US you have had roughly 30 years of Affirmative Action which is partially responsible for the rise of a black middle class but which has done squat to deal with the high encarceration rates or the fact of above average unemployment. Thus I expect that even if the French Government approves of some sort of Affirmatove Action, it will not do anything for unskilled immigrants or others at the margins of French Society.
Lastly, No, let me repeat: NO capitalist country has "full employment." There exists no such thing in a Capitalist economy. So who exactly do we expect to end up on the unemployment line more often? Who then will we expect to end up in the prisons more often?
I'm not saying it's right. I am saying that it's real and the rioting won't change the larger picture much as it hasn't changed it in the US.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Strange Things in Orange NJ
Yesterday a 13 year old was killed when a car jumped a curb and hit him. The car was being chased by a Orange NJ police officer in a SUV. The initial reports claimed that the driver was in a stolen vehicle. Today doubts have been cast on this story as the owner of the vehicle said on camera (though not under oath yet) that the car was hers and was not stolen. So if the car was not stolen, then why was it reported by the media as being stolen? Surely the report was based on discussions with the Orange and East Orange police. The Mayor of Orange was on the telly today saying that this case underscores why one should never run from the police. Well perhaps, but if the car was not stolen, why was it reported as so? It seems to me that the initial reason for chasing the vehicle may well be suspect.
Yesterday a 13 year old was killed when a car jumped a curb and hit him. The car was being chased by a Orange NJ police officer in a SUV. The initial reports claimed that the driver was in a stolen vehicle. Today doubts have been cast on this story as the owner of the vehicle said on camera (though not under oath yet) that the car was hers and was not stolen. So if the car was not stolen, then why was it reported by the media as being stolen? Surely the report was based on discussions with the Orange and East Orange police. The Mayor of Orange was on the telly today saying that this case underscores why one should never run from the police. Well perhaps, but if the car was not stolen, why was it reported as so? It seems to me that the initial reason for chasing the vehicle may well be suspect.
Governments Do Not Make Jobs
So I'm watching the news reports on the continuing riots in Paris. I call these riots rather than rebellions because in my opinion this situation is way different from say the Watts rebellion in LA. See to me, France is a white European country who may choose who they will and will not let in. As an immigrant I either like the rules or I don't. If I don't I am free to leave the same way I came. Unlike say African-Americans, brought here without ourt consent and having been here from the begininng and being more "Americans" than most others, Immigrants in France cannot make these claims. If they could then I would have to be consistent and be opposed to the land "reforms" being done in Zimbabwe and South Africa. True, they may be following the money expropriated during colonialism but this still is an immigration issue. I'm actually surprised that the police have n ot shot anyone yet, though I'm sure that is due to a policy on the part of the government. But that's not really the focus of this post. The real focus was what an Imam said:
"The government should provide jobs for the youths."
Excuse me? It seems to be endemic in certain communities of color, that the government is supposed to create jobs for people. Exactly where is this coming from? The government is charged with no such thing. The government provides for defence, and social services. It does not create jobs other than those needed to actually run the government. It would appear that many people in France, as well as elsewhere, need to come to this understanding fast. At best the government provides a framework wherein jobs can be created by private enterprise, but it does not in itself make jobs. Therefore if the Imam and the youths burning their neighbors vehicles are seeking jobs then they should be first questioning those in their communities that have business why they are not employing them. They should question why it may be that persons in thier communities do not have businesses to create the jobs in question. No matter what "promises" the state gives these communities, the state will simply be unable to "create" jobs for anyone. So
millions of Francs in damages done. Neighbors left without transportation and maybe even homes and all that has resulted is a large overtime bill for the state. Extra pay for the officers and extra hardships for the remaining poor. And do expect deportations.
So I'm watching the news reports on the continuing riots in Paris. I call these riots rather than rebellions because in my opinion this situation is way different from say the Watts rebellion in LA. See to me, France is a white European country who may choose who they will and will not let in. As an immigrant I either like the rules or I don't. If I don't I am free to leave the same way I came. Unlike say African-Americans, brought here without ourt consent and having been here from the begininng and being more "Americans" than most others, Immigrants in France cannot make these claims. If they could then I would have to be consistent and be opposed to the land "reforms" being done in Zimbabwe and South Africa. True, they may be following the money expropriated during colonialism but this still is an immigration issue. I'm actually surprised that the police have n ot shot anyone yet, though I'm sure that is due to a policy on the part of the government. But that's not really the focus of this post. The real focus was what an Imam said:
"The government should provide jobs for the youths."
Excuse me? It seems to be endemic in certain communities of color, that the government is supposed to create jobs for people. Exactly where is this coming from? The government is charged with no such thing. The government provides for defence, and social services. It does not create jobs other than those needed to actually run the government. It would appear that many people in France, as well as elsewhere, need to come to this understanding fast. At best the government provides a framework wherein jobs can be created by private enterprise, but it does not in itself make jobs. Therefore if the Imam and the youths burning their neighbors vehicles are seeking jobs then they should be first questioning those in their communities that have business why they are not employing them. They should question why it may be that persons in thier communities do not have businesses to create the jobs in question. No matter what "promises" the state gives these communities, the state will simply be unable to "create" jobs for anyone. So
millions of Francs in damages done. Neighbors left without transportation and maybe even homes and all that has resulted is a large overtime bill for the state. Extra pay for the officers and extra hardships for the remaining poor. And do expect deportations.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Mexican Exodus
You'll note that this blog has not covered anything much on Katrina and Neew Orleans. I'm content to sit back and watch the saga unfurl. This is not really about the Hurricane but about what happens next. USA Today published an article yesteray entitled: Thousands of evacuees face eviction in which we find that the poorest and most vulnerable of Katrina's victims are facing mass evictions just as the cold weather approaches:
quote:
Posted 10/31/2005 1:23 AM Updated 10/31/2005 6:43 AM
E-Mail Newsletters
Sign up to receive our free Daily Briefing e-newsletter and get the top news of the day in your inbox.
E-mail:
Select one: HTML Text
Breaking News E-Mail Alerts
• Get breaking news in your inbox as it happens
Thousands of evacuees face eviction
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Two months after Hurricane Katrina displaced more than 1 million people, problems with federal housing aid threaten to spawn a new wave of homelessness.
Left to right: Brandy Morris, 5, Brien'te Morris, 2, and Dominique Weathersby, 3, wait by their belongings stored in the belly of a bus. Left to right: Brandy Morris, 5, Brien'te Morris, 2, and Dominique Weathersby, 3, wait by their belongings stored in the belly of a bus.
AP
In Texas, thousands of evacuees who found shelter in apartments face eviction threats because rents are going unpaid.
In Louisiana, some evacuees are beginning to show up in homeless shelters because they haven't received federal aid or don't know how to get it. (Related story: At FEMA trailer park in La., a swirl of emotions)
Advocates for the poor say the situation will worsen this winter.
"They are the poorest folks ... and they are the ones who are going to be left with nothing," says Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. "It's going to show up at homeless shelters this winter."
The housing crunch could get tighter in November, because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wants to move an estimated 200,000 Katrina evacuees out of hotels as soon as possible. (Related story: Katrina, Rita victims settle in elsewhere)
That increases the need for apartments, trailers and mobile homes.
Pressure is building on FEMA to alter its policies. Two programs provide rent money directly to evacuees or reimburse local governments. But many evacuees have not received the cash or have used it for other needs. And some cities refuse to spend their own money up front.
Representatives of apartment owners who met with federal officials in Dallas on Thursday say about 15,000 Katrina evacuees in Texas alone face eviction in November for unpaid rent or for other reasons. "You face the possibility of people who rent apartments being displaced again," says Jim Arbury of the National Multi Housing Council.
FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews says the agency is not considering changes. Any city that runs its own program will be reimbursed, she says.
Evacuees who have trouble using FEMA's three-month, $2,358 rent checks can get help from caseworkers. "If (landlords) choose to evict people," she says, "they're free to do that."
Houston spent its own money for apartments for more than 5,000 families and issued rent vouchers for 25,000 more, says Sharon Adams of the city's Hurricane Housing Task Force.
Dallas used private funding to house about 2,000 families for two months, but the money will run out soon.
"As callous as it sounds, our commitment to them was two months," says Celso Martinez of the Dallas mayor's office.
While this Martinez is "actual-factual" about the plight of displaced NO residents, another set of "Martinez's" are in NO working. Though the website story does not mention it, there is a great influx of Mexicans into NO to do work paying $10-17/hour. The newscast featured contractors that "hook up" over 100 people, mostly Mexicans, with contractors doing work in NO to clear debris and rebuild property.
I've long held that the problem with Illegal Immigration is not the people who come in, but the companies that pay them low wages in order to increase their profits, exploit the workers and thereby kill the local (some of whome are black) employemnt prospects. In this case it would appear that they are now paying the Mexicans, and others, nearly $20/hour (which for the South I'll assume is a good wage, but feel free to correct me). One contractor claimed that the blacks don't want to work. No, the blacks were bussed out. If there is space to house all the Mexicans and others coming in to do the work, then the black residents of the NO should have been instructed and transported back to NO to do the same work. And let me add that many of the Mexicans coming in,travelled from Texas, you know, the state where many NO residents were shipped to.
So there we have it; a combination of lack of leadership at the top and a lack of business in the middle and the wholesale disenfranchisement of those at the bottom.
Welcome to the New, Orleans.
You'll note that this blog has not covered anything much on Katrina and Neew Orleans. I'm content to sit back and watch the saga unfurl. This is not really about the Hurricane but about what happens next. USA Today published an article yesteray entitled: Thousands of evacuees face eviction in which we find that the poorest and most vulnerable of Katrina's victims are facing mass evictions just as the cold weather approaches:
quote:
Posted 10/31/2005 1:23 AM Updated 10/31/2005 6:43 AM
E-Mail Newsletters
Sign up to receive our free Daily Briefing e-newsletter and get the top news of the day in your inbox.
E-mail:
Select one: HTML Text
Breaking News E-Mail Alerts
• Get breaking news in your inbox as it happens
Thousands of evacuees face eviction
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Two months after Hurricane Katrina displaced more than 1 million people, problems with federal housing aid threaten to spawn a new wave of homelessness.
Left to right: Brandy Morris, 5, Brien'te Morris, 2, and Dominique Weathersby, 3, wait by their belongings stored in the belly of a bus. Left to right: Brandy Morris, 5, Brien'te Morris, 2, and Dominique Weathersby, 3, wait by their belongings stored in the belly of a bus.
AP
In Texas, thousands of evacuees who found shelter in apartments face eviction threats because rents are going unpaid.
In Louisiana, some evacuees are beginning to show up in homeless shelters because they haven't received federal aid or don't know how to get it. (Related story: At FEMA trailer park in La., a swirl of emotions)
Advocates for the poor say the situation will worsen this winter.
"They are the poorest folks ... and they are the ones who are going to be left with nothing," says Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. "It's going to show up at homeless shelters this winter."
The housing crunch could get tighter in November, because the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wants to move an estimated 200,000 Katrina evacuees out of hotels as soon as possible. (Related story: Katrina, Rita victims settle in elsewhere)
That increases the need for apartments, trailers and mobile homes.
Pressure is building on FEMA to alter its policies. Two programs provide rent money directly to evacuees or reimburse local governments. But many evacuees have not received the cash or have used it for other needs. And some cities refuse to spend their own money up front.
Representatives of apartment owners who met with federal officials in Dallas on Thursday say about 15,000 Katrina evacuees in Texas alone face eviction in November for unpaid rent or for other reasons. "You face the possibility of people who rent apartments being displaced again," says Jim Arbury of the National Multi Housing Council.
FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews says the agency is not considering changes. Any city that runs its own program will be reimbursed, she says.
Evacuees who have trouble using FEMA's three-month, $2,358 rent checks can get help from caseworkers. "If (landlords) choose to evict people," she says, "they're free to do that."
Houston spent its own money for apartments for more than 5,000 families and issued rent vouchers for 25,000 more, says Sharon Adams of the city's Hurricane Housing Task Force.
Dallas used private funding to house about 2,000 families for two months, but the money will run out soon.
"As callous as it sounds, our commitment to them was two months," says Celso Martinez of the Dallas mayor's office.
While this Martinez is "actual-factual" about the plight of displaced NO residents, another set of "Martinez's" are in NO working. Though the website story does not mention it, there is a great influx of Mexicans into NO to do work paying $10-17/hour. The newscast featured contractors that "hook up" over 100 people, mostly Mexicans, with contractors doing work in NO to clear debris and rebuild property.
I've long held that the problem with Illegal Immigration is not the people who come in, but the companies that pay them low wages in order to increase their profits, exploit the workers and thereby kill the local (some of whome are black) employemnt prospects. In this case it would appear that they are now paying the Mexicans, and others, nearly $20/hour (which for the South I'll assume is a good wage, but feel free to correct me). One contractor claimed that the blacks don't want to work. No, the blacks were bussed out. If there is space to house all the Mexicans and others coming in to do the work, then the black residents of the NO should have been instructed and transported back to NO to do the same work. And let me add that many of the Mexicans coming in,travelled from Texas, you know, the state where many NO residents were shipped to.
So there we have it; a combination of lack of leadership at the top and a lack of business in the middle and the wholesale disenfranchisement of those at the bottom.
Welcome to the New, Orleans.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Another Look at Segregation Laws
I'm not a fan o Mr. Thomas Sowell, nor the publication which carries his work, Capitalism Magazine. however Mr. Sowell has aquited himself quite well in a piece entitled Rosa Parks: Pursuit of Profit vs. Racism
In which he points out:
Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.
These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about...
The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.
These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.
None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront."
The above is very important to understand in light of our modern day situation. The racist will take your money and smile while doing it. Integration is nothing but a shell game whereby blacks pay other people for services and feel "good" about doing so but feel that doing business with there own is parochial or closed minded. The domination of "other people' doing business in black neighborhoods or owning rental property in black neighborhoods are clear examples of what Mr. Sowell is talking about.
This also underscored the philosophy that slavery itself was abolished because it was soon to be a nonfeasable economic situation. Slaves by thier nature depress wages since you don't need to pay poor whites anything that a slave could do. Furthermore; the mechanization of crop farming would reduce the need for large numbers of slaves. The problem had been what to do with the slave, which is why the so called "Great Emancipator" wanted to ship the Africans set free by the Emancipation Proclamation to Texas. Failing that, blacks became a marginalized group to be exploited economically as owners realized that by keeping a monopoly on business ownership in white hands and keeping blacks in a state of consumption, there would be guaranteed income from one section of the black community,that being the middle class, and ample free labour in the form of prison labour, from another segment, the black poor.
Remember, he (or she) that does business with you still may hate you.
links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4457
I'm not a fan o Mr. Thomas Sowell, nor the publication which carries his work, Capitalism Magazine. however Mr. Sowell has aquited himself quite well in a piece entitled Rosa Parks: Pursuit of Profit vs. Racism
In which he points out:
Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.
These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about...
The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.
These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.
None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront."
The above is very important to understand in light of our modern day situation. The racist will take your money and smile while doing it. Integration is nothing but a shell game whereby blacks pay other people for services and feel "good" about doing so but feel that doing business with there own is parochial or closed minded. The domination of "other people' doing business in black neighborhoods or owning rental property in black neighborhoods are clear examples of what Mr. Sowell is talking about.
This also underscored the philosophy that slavery itself was abolished because it was soon to be a nonfeasable economic situation. Slaves by thier nature depress wages since you don't need to pay poor whites anything that a slave could do. Furthermore; the mechanization of crop farming would reduce the need for large numbers of slaves. The problem had been what to do with the slave, which is why the so called "Great Emancipator" wanted to ship the Africans set free by the Emancipation Proclamation to Texas. Failing that, blacks became a marginalized group to be exploited economically as owners realized that by keeping a monopoly on business ownership in white hands and keeping blacks in a state of consumption, there would be guaranteed income from one section of the black community,that being the middle class, and ample free labour in the form of prison labour, from another segment, the black poor.
Remember, he (or she) that does business with you still may hate you.
links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4457
What Is Wrong With A Segment of Our Youth?
If you don't know, a man was shot yesterday after confronting two "kids" who threw eggs at his vehicle. Yes, let me repeat this. A man was shot by two "kids" who threw eggs at his vehicle. Apparently after his vehicle was hit, he chased after the kids who ran into a building and then shot the driver. Now when I first heard the report I thought the driver of the vehicle had shot the kids. But NO, the kids, who had vandalized his property took offense to the man asking them to clean off his car and shot him. These "kids" were 14 and 15 years old and BLACK. Exactly what kind of parenting did they have that made them think it was OK to shoot someone whose property they were caught vandalizing? What kind of logic were they using to suppose that shooting the man was a better outcome than just cleaning the vehicle? I'm not even going to entertain the thought that the vehicle driver should not have come out of his car. You want to know why? because he and the rest of the citizens should not have succumb to these thugs.
What possible reason did they have for this? It wasn't poverty. They weren't killing to get a buck or steal a car to sell to a chop shop. They didn't need the car for shelter. No they thought vandalizing his vehicle was fun. They thought shooting the man was justified 'cause they "take no shorts." they "Take no disrespect."
Well how about you take a needle to the arm. Does that sound harsh? I don't think so. You make a bad choice in who you have unprotected sex with, you die. No different, Bad choice, Death sentance.
If you don't know, a man was shot yesterday after confronting two "kids" who threw eggs at his vehicle. Yes, let me repeat this. A man was shot by two "kids" who threw eggs at his vehicle. Apparently after his vehicle was hit, he chased after the kids who ran into a building and then shot the driver. Now when I first heard the report I thought the driver of the vehicle had shot the kids. But NO, the kids, who had vandalized his property took offense to the man asking them to clean off his car and shot him. These "kids" were 14 and 15 years old and BLACK. Exactly what kind of parenting did they have that made them think it was OK to shoot someone whose property they were caught vandalizing? What kind of logic were they using to suppose that shooting the man was a better outcome than just cleaning the vehicle? I'm not even going to entertain the thought that the vehicle driver should not have come out of his car. You want to know why? because he and the rest of the citizens should not have succumb to these thugs.
What possible reason did they have for this? It wasn't poverty. They weren't killing to get a buck or steal a car to sell to a chop shop. They didn't need the car for shelter. No they thought vandalizing his vehicle was fun. They thought shooting the man was justified 'cause they "take no shorts." they "Take no disrespect."
Well how about you take a needle to the arm. Does that sound harsh? I don't think so. You make a bad choice in who you have unprotected sex with, you die. No different, Bad choice, Death sentance.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Rosa Parks: But She Sat!
Yesterday Rosa Parks, the symbol of the 50's Civil Rights Movement, died at a ripe old age. Everywhere we are hearing how her bold move to sit in a segregated bus "ignited" the Civil Rights Movement. without disrespecting Egun Parks I would like to put her actions into a different perspective. The movie "The Barber Shop" sparked controversy when one of it's characters minimized Rosa Parks actions that fateful day. But students of history know that while the comment may have been crude, it was bassed in fact. The fact of the matter is that others before Rosa Parks had in fact sat in the face of the same order. Civil Rights organizations chose not to make those incidences rallying points because of some "character flaw" in the oppressed individual. One such individual was a single mother of the "lower economic class" to take a phrase from Bill Cosby. The leadership at that time did not feel that such a person would be "right" for a challenge to the segregation laws in Montgomery Al.
This is significant because it exposes a few overlooked issues. First there was already a movement, however flawed,against the Montgomery segregation laws. Also said movement involved many women whome are usually overlooked in favor of men, MLK Jr. in particular. Lastly, the simmerling class issues within black communities that deemed a single mother as being not 'suitable" to represent resistance to segregation.
Thus, while we honor Egun Parks for being bold when so many were not we should think on those others who's acts of defiance were never reported on, who probably died in the woods somewhere on some tree, or like Emmett Till, found themselves in a river. These people also deserve recognitions just as the "unknown soldiers" are recognized. We should also address the class problem in Black communities where we do not see the crimes done to our poorer bretheren as being "not as bad" as one done to someone of "higher standing."
So I salute Egun Parks for being one of many who resisted injustice in their own way.
Ase-O!!
Yesterday Rosa Parks, the symbol of the 50's Civil Rights Movement, died at a ripe old age. Everywhere we are hearing how her bold move to sit in a segregated bus "ignited" the Civil Rights Movement. without disrespecting Egun Parks I would like to put her actions into a different perspective. The movie "The Barber Shop" sparked controversy when one of it's characters minimized Rosa Parks actions that fateful day. But students of history know that while the comment may have been crude, it was bassed in fact. The fact of the matter is that others before Rosa Parks had in fact sat in the face of the same order. Civil Rights organizations chose not to make those incidences rallying points because of some "character flaw" in the oppressed individual. One such individual was a single mother of the "lower economic class" to take a phrase from Bill Cosby. The leadership at that time did not feel that such a person would be "right" for a challenge to the segregation laws in Montgomery Al.
This is significant because it exposes a few overlooked issues. First there was already a movement, however flawed,against the Montgomery segregation laws. Also said movement involved many women whome are usually overlooked in favor of men, MLK Jr. in particular. Lastly, the simmerling class issues within black communities that deemed a single mother as being not 'suitable" to represent resistance to segregation.
Thus, while we honor Egun Parks for being bold when so many were not we should think on those others who's acts of defiance were never reported on, who probably died in the woods somewhere on some tree, or like Emmett Till, found themselves in a river. These people also deserve recognitions just as the "unknown soldiers" are recognized. We should also address the class problem in Black communities where we do not see the crimes done to our poorer bretheren as being "not as bad" as one done to someone of "higher standing."
So I salute Egun Parks for being one of many who resisted injustice in their own way.
Ase-O!!
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Religion as Mind and body Control
This evening while reading the NY Times online I stumbled across an article entitled:Afghan Court Gives Editor 2-Year Term for Blasphemy. The general point was that the "conservatives" of that country wanted to follow Sharia and put the man to death for writing an article about Apostacy. In his article he claimed that Apostacy was taboo but not against Sharia. To be honest I have no idea whether or not Apostacy is against Sharia but I'll take the claim at face value. But this commentary is not really about the event but rather the idea that a person should be put to death for either questioning a religious tenet or for abandoning the "faith" of a particular society.
What purpose does killing a person for renouncing Islam serve? Really? Is God threatened by one of it's creations deciding not to believe in the particular path that his or her society laid out to deal with it? Or is it really that the society or the religion is actually serving the wishes of the weak minded and weak willed of that society? Surely if apostacy was such a threat to God or it's created material world, God would, being omnipotent, eliminate that person from existance. But that does not happen. There are any number of Islamic apostates that are walking around with God's full knowledge and the universe as we know it has not collapsed.
Therefore, if God is not so threatened by these Apostates, then it means that some other being is threatened. That being is man. And I mean man as in the male species. It is clear that the killing of the Apostate individual is an act of social control meant to keep the rest of society in line. After all, if someone can renounce the religion and live, then what would stop him or her from challenging the authority of so called religious leaders? Of course this is exactly what is feared. Thus the idea that the apostate must be killed is not a rule that serves God but rather the egos and thirst for power of the Apostate's executioner.
It is interesting that in other religions such as Buddhhism and my own, Ifa, does not attempt to stifle the questioning individual. The individual is free to believe or not believe. In Ifa it is the individual that threatens him or herself by not observing the religious obligations. The Orisa, agents of God (Olodumare) are their to aid the individual to achieve and maintain Iwa Pele (good character). It is recognized that even "believers" can be mistaken. The Ifa Corpus has many examples of characters doing good or ill by following or not following the advice of Ifa. Therefore it is not that the age of the religions are the cause of the apparent egoism and power trips of "conservatives" it is that there are deeply flawed outgrowths from Islam's roots that have allowed men to do nothing but oppress women (while having sex with boys as is done in Afghanistan)and do nothing to move their societies forward.
Ultimately a religion that stoops to violence and killing in order to maintain control of it's members is a religion in serious need of reformation.
This evening while reading the NY Times online I stumbled across an article entitled:Afghan Court Gives Editor 2-Year Term for Blasphemy. The general point was that the "conservatives" of that country wanted to follow Sharia and put the man to death for writing an article about Apostacy. In his article he claimed that Apostacy was taboo but not against Sharia. To be honest I have no idea whether or not Apostacy is against Sharia but I'll take the claim at face value. But this commentary is not really about the event but rather the idea that a person should be put to death for either questioning a religious tenet or for abandoning the "faith" of a particular society.
What purpose does killing a person for renouncing Islam serve? Really? Is God threatened by one of it's creations deciding not to believe in the particular path that his or her society laid out to deal with it? Or is it really that the society or the religion is actually serving the wishes of the weak minded and weak willed of that society? Surely if apostacy was such a threat to God or it's created material world, God would, being omnipotent, eliminate that person from existance. But that does not happen. There are any number of Islamic apostates that are walking around with God's full knowledge and the universe as we know it has not collapsed.
Therefore, if God is not so threatened by these Apostates, then it means that some other being is threatened. That being is man. And I mean man as in the male species. It is clear that the killing of the Apostate individual is an act of social control meant to keep the rest of society in line. After all, if someone can renounce the religion and live, then what would stop him or her from challenging the authority of so called religious leaders? Of course this is exactly what is feared. Thus the idea that the apostate must be killed is not a rule that serves God but rather the egos and thirst for power of the Apostate's executioner.
It is interesting that in other religions such as Buddhhism and my own, Ifa, does not attempt to stifle the questioning individual. The individual is free to believe or not believe. In Ifa it is the individual that threatens him or herself by not observing the religious obligations. The Orisa, agents of God (Olodumare) are their to aid the individual to achieve and maintain Iwa Pele (good character). It is recognized that even "believers" can be mistaken. The Ifa Corpus has many examples of characters doing good or ill by following or not following the advice of Ifa. Therefore it is not that the age of the religions are the cause of the apparent egoism and power trips of "conservatives" it is that there are deeply flawed outgrowths from Islam's roots that have allowed men to do nothing but oppress women (while having sex with boys as is done in Afghanistan)and do nothing to move their societies forward.
Ultimately a religion that stoops to violence and killing in order to maintain control of it's members is a religion in serious need of reformation.
That Dress Code Thing
So the NBA want's a dress code for it's players who are off court. Sounds good. The NBA want's it's employees to dress in suits and no doo-rags, sneakers or gold chains. I'll stop here and note that the aforementioned "no-no's" are clearly black/urban/Hip Hop dress.
According to the Baltimore Sun:
Now, the NBA is trying to change its image with a memo issued Monday that orders players to dress more boardroom than schoolyard. The "business casual" code means no T-shirts, no baggy jeans, no retro jerseys, no hats, no chains and no athletic shoes at team or league events. Players not in uniform at games must wear a sport coat and dress shoes.
hmmmm. Before I get into the approved uniform, I'd like to deal with some other issue, I didn't see raised here: There's a saying that people should dress appropriate for the job Thus, if you were seeking or working a construction job then one would be out of place and dressed inappropriately if you wore an Armani suit. In my own field, showing up in a suit is bad since I'm liable to be on the floor or carrying heavy, dusty computers around. You do not want to ruin an expensive dress shirt on that kind of job. I think the NBA should be looked at in the same way . The ball players are athlets, there dress code is shorts, sneakers, sweatbands, jerseys and other athletic wear. So it seems to me that with the exception of the Doo-Rags (which I personaly don't think should be worn outside but that's another story) and gold chains, the Atheletes who dress in such "atheletic/Hip Hop" clothes are in fact "dressed for the job."
In fact I would say that the athletes wearins Armani suits are in fact "out of uniform" and not "dressed for the job." The money people, the managers, etc. who are not Athletes should be made to wear suits to make sure they "stay in uniform." But even that presents a problem. See there's this CEO who insists upon wearing baggy pants, sweaters and sneakers in public and in his dailyh business. In fact he has a rather "bad" habit of wearing baseball caps, tilted to the side no less. Yet this CEO is not only taken seriously, but is considered one of the best CEO's in his business. Of course I speak of non-other than Russel Simmons. Def Jam or BMG have never even attempted to THINK publicly about Russel Simmons dress because Rusell Simmons has enough power and self respect to not be told how to dress by other people,. Hence I get to my position on this matter.
As Allen Iverson pointed out, The atheletes are grown men and can dress however they want, off court. It is only the fact of the 'high negro quotient" of the NBA that this even went anywhere. The fact is that when some cracka who lost his mind and tossed a drink at a player got served, the NBA was shook that the Negroes were attacking the good white folks and wants to regain control over the black cash cows.
Another obvious racial/cultural component is what is considered "appropriate dress".
Players not in uniform at games must wear a sport coat and dress shoes.
I have a problem with that too. So should one of the "negroes" show up courtside with a Abada, Grand Bubu, or Dashiki, I guess he'll be looking at a fine too.
Yes folks, this is in fact another power and control grab by the white folks in the NBA (and thier black side kicks) over black players. I think all the athletes should show up in whatever culturally appropriate "uniform" they choose and refuse to play until the management realizes that "captian" cracker days are done. You want a uniform, you want to single out urban wears, you come to the players and ask for a compromise. That's respect. Show some.
So the NBA want's a dress code for it's players who are off court. Sounds good. The NBA want's it's employees to dress in suits and no doo-rags, sneakers or gold chains. I'll stop here and note that the aforementioned "no-no's" are clearly black/urban/Hip Hop dress.
According to the Baltimore Sun:
Now, the NBA is trying to change its image with a memo issued Monday that orders players to dress more boardroom than schoolyard. The "business casual" code means no T-shirts, no baggy jeans, no retro jerseys, no hats, no chains and no athletic shoes at team or league events. Players not in uniform at games must wear a sport coat and dress shoes.
hmmmm. Before I get into the approved uniform, I'd like to deal with some other issue, I didn't see raised here: There's a saying that people should dress appropriate for the job Thus, if you were seeking or working a construction job then one would be out of place and dressed inappropriately if you wore an Armani suit. In my own field, showing up in a suit is bad since I'm liable to be on the floor or carrying heavy, dusty computers around. You do not want to ruin an expensive dress shirt on that kind of job. I think the NBA should be looked at in the same way . The ball players are athlets, there dress code is shorts, sneakers, sweatbands, jerseys and other athletic wear. So it seems to me that with the exception of the Doo-Rags (which I personaly don't think should be worn outside but that's another story) and gold chains, the Atheletes who dress in such "atheletic/Hip Hop" clothes are in fact "dressed for the job."
In fact I would say that the athletes wearins Armani suits are in fact "out of uniform" and not "dressed for the job." The money people, the managers, etc. who are not Athletes should be made to wear suits to make sure they "stay in uniform." But even that presents a problem. See there's this CEO who insists upon wearing baggy pants, sweaters and sneakers in public and in his dailyh business. In fact he has a rather "bad" habit of wearing baseball caps, tilted to the side no less. Yet this CEO is not only taken seriously, but is considered one of the best CEO's in his business. Of course I speak of non-other than Russel Simmons. Def Jam or BMG have never even attempted to THINK publicly about Russel Simmons dress because Rusell Simmons has enough power and self respect to not be told how to dress by other people,. Hence I get to my position on this matter.
As Allen Iverson pointed out, The atheletes are grown men and can dress however they want, off court. It is only the fact of the 'high negro quotient" of the NBA that this even went anywhere. The fact is that when some cracka who lost his mind and tossed a drink at a player got served, the NBA was shook that the Negroes were attacking the good white folks and wants to regain control over the black cash cows.
Another obvious racial/cultural component is what is considered "appropriate dress".
Players not in uniform at games must wear a sport coat and dress shoes.
I have a problem with that too. So should one of the "negroes" show up courtside with a Abada, Grand Bubu, or Dashiki, I guess he'll be looking at a fine too.
Yes folks, this is in fact another power and control grab by the white folks in the NBA (and thier black side kicks) over black players. I think all the athletes should show up in whatever culturally appropriate "uniform" they choose and refuse to play until the management realizes that "captian" cracker days are done. You want a uniform, you want to single out urban wears, you come to the players and ask for a compromise. That's respect. Show some.
Faith Based America
So while I was on Alternet this morning I read a article entitled Welcome to Faith Based America in which the following was reported:
As part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative," US taxpayers gave the Salvation Army's children services division $47 million this year -- 95% of its total budget. Several Salvation Army employees refused to take the Salvation Army's pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," reveal which church they belong to or identify gay co-workers -- and were summarily fired.
It links to a Washington Post article in which we find:
U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein noted that all the plaintiffs worked for a children's services division of the Salvation Army that gets 95 percent of its $50 million budget from government grants.
But the judge's 48-page opinion upheld the principle that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. That principle is at the heart of the Bush administration's policy.
"It's huge," H. James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said of the decision. "It's certainly a vindication of what President Bush has been saying from Day One -- that religious groups do not have to sell their soul, compromise their hiring practices, in order to partner with government in providing social services."
This is a very important and clearly wrong judicial decision that clearly violates Church-State boundaries that Mr. Bush et. al. are bent on destroying.
If a school receives federal funds it cannot discriminate against protected classes. Now the 1954 civil rights legislation makes it clear that religion based organizations may hire and fire based on religion since religion is the basis of the organization's founding. Now Non-profit entities such as the Salvation Army do not pay taxes so long as they abide by the rules of 501c(3) regulations.
So we see that there is a conflict of interest here. The government cannot by law give funds directly to organizations that discriminate, yet "faith based" organizations are free to discriminate. Lets look at the ethics here:
People look for work. Much of what the Salvation Army does requires low skilled labor. People with low skills in America are more likely to be poor and, hence in need of employment. If one of those persons were to apply for a job they are qualified for you would think that the Salvation Army, being a charitable organization, would welcome the opportunity to provide employment to people. In fact, the last page of it's Annual report states:
THE SALVATION ARMY, AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT,
IS AN EVANGELICAL PART OF THE UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
ITS MESSAGE IS BASED ON THE BIBLE.
ITS MINISTRY IS MOTIVATED BY THE LOVE OF GOD.
ITS MISSION IS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
AND TO MEET HUMAN NEEDS
IN HIS NAME WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.
Thus ethically, and by it's own mission statement, the Salvation Army is out of line for making demands on the employees. Secondly, since the organization clearly states that it exists to "Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ," then it should not be receiving any funds from the Federal, State or Local government for it's activities. If it does receive such funds, then they should be made to show that the monies were used in activities that did not involved "Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
According to it's 2004 Annual report the Salvation Army recvieved 11%$ of its finding from the "government." It's budget was $3,040 million, 11% of which was $334,000,000 of US Taxpayer money
$60 million more than went to HBCU's in that year. $30 million more than was allocated for Community Development Loan Guarantees. There are many programs that the $334 million could have gone to but, no, it was given to an organization to prosyletize and discriminate against employees involved in addressing human needs.
Now it has been posited that folks who are not Christian should not work at an organization that is Christian. I would agree, except, well we supposedly work in a secular country where discrimination is prohibited. I do wonder whether the peeople who donate to the Salvation Army know that it discriminates and harrasses it's employees. I wonder if the Salvation Army checks the religion of the folks donating to it. I mean if employing and paying non-believers is a problem for the Salvation Army, then taking the money of non-believers should be a problem as well.
I'd like my portion of that $334 returned.
So while I was on Alternet this morning I read a article entitled Welcome to Faith Based America in which the following was reported:
As part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative," US taxpayers gave the Salvation Army's children services division $47 million this year -- 95% of its total budget. Several Salvation Army employees refused to take the Salvation Army's pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," reveal which church they belong to or identify gay co-workers -- and were summarily fired.
It links to a Washington Post article in which we find:
U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein noted that all the plaintiffs worked for a children's services division of the Salvation Army that gets 95 percent of its $50 million budget from government grants.
But the judge's 48-page opinion upheld the principle that a religious group can hire and fire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs and practices, even if their salaries come from taxpayer funds. That principle is at the heart of the Bush administration's policy.
"It's huge," H. James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said of the decision. "It's certainly a vindication of what President Bush has been saying from Day One -- that religious groups do not have to sell their soul, compromise their hiring practices, in order to partner with government in providing social services."
This is a very important and clearly wrong judicial decision that clearly violates Church-State boundaries that Mr. Bush et. al. are bent on destroying.
If a school receives federal funds it cannot discriminate against protected classes. Now the 1954 civil rights legislation makes it clear that religion based organizations may hire and fire based on religion since religion is the basis of the organization's founding. Now Non-profit entities such as the Salvation Army do not pay taxes so long as they abide by the rules of 501c(3) regulations.
So we see that there is a conflict of interest here. The government cannot by law give funds directly to organizations that discriminate, yet "faith based" organizations are free to discriminate. Lets look at the ethics here:
People look for work. Much of what the Salvation Army does requires low skilled labor. People with low skills in America are more likely to be poor and, hence in need of employment. If one of those persons were to apply for a job they are qualified for you would think that the Salvation Army, being a charitable organization, would welcome the opportunity to provide employment to people. In fact, the last page of it's Annual report states:
THE SALVATION ARMY, AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT,
IS AN EVANGELICAL PART OF THE UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
ITS MESSAGE IS BASED ON THE BIBLE.
ITS MINISTRY IS MOTIVATED BY THE LOVE OF GOD.
ITS MISSION IS TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
AND TO MEET HUMAN NEEDS
IN HIS NAME WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.
Thus ethically, and by it's own mission statement, the Salvation Army is out of line for making demands on the employees. Secondly, since the organization clearly states that it exists to "Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ," then it should not be receiving any funds from the Federal, State or Local government for it's activities. If it does receive such funds, then they should be made to show that the monies were used in activities that did not involved "Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
According to it's 2004 Annual report the Salvation Army recvieved 11%$ of its finding from the "government." It's budget was $3,040 million, 11% of which was $334,000,000 of US Taxpayer money
$60 million more than went to HBCU's in that year. $30 million more than was allocated for Community Development Loan Guarantees. There are many programs that the $334 million could have gone to but, no, it was given to an organization to prosyletize and discriminate against employees involved in addressing human needs.
Now it has been posited that folks who are not Christian should not work at an organization that is Christian. I would agree, except, well we supposedly work in a secular country where discrimination is prohibited. I do wonder whether the peeople who donate to the Salvation Army know that it discriminates and harrasses it's employees. I wonder if the Salvation Army checks the religion of the folks donating to it. I mean if employing and paying non-believers is a problem for the Salvation Army, then taking the money of non-believers should be a problem as well.
I'd like my portion of that $334 returned.
Monday, October 17, 2005
All the news fit to print eh
The New York Times, long and often attacked as being a "Liberal" paper had a very interesting thing happen this weekend. It had no news of the Millions More Movement. There was reporting of the vote in Iraq, sports, house building, but no news on the Millions More Movement. Now it's not that you must agree with Min. Farahkhan or Jesse Jackson or Al Shapton. I would simply think that a couple thousand black folks on the Great Lawn would at least lend itself to at least a 2 paragraph note on the event. Maybe a picture. But no. Just now I did a search on the NYT website for Millions More Movement and came up with nada, zero, zilch, the big bupkiss. I also did another search on "black incarceration." and I got more than 1 result. I got quite a few results actually. It would appear the so called "liberal" NYT's finds reporting on black incarceration more 'newsworthy" than the goings on and opinions of the non-incarcerated among us.
So I'd really like to know. Does Bob Herbet have anything to say on the subject? No, I guess not. So it appears that here in 2005 Ralph Ellison still has it right. Black folks, Invisible, unless we're committing a crime or dancing a gig.
Thanks NYT's for reminding me of what's really "fit to print." At least online.
The New York Times, long and often attacked as being a "Liberal" paper had a very interesting thing happen this weekend. It had no news of the Millions More Movement. There was reporting of the vote in Iraq, sports, house building, but no news on the Millions More Movement. Now it's not that you must agree with Min. Farahkhan or Jesse Jackson or Al Shapton. I would simply think that a couple thousand black folks on the Great Lawn would at least lend itself to at least a 2 paragraph note on the event. Maybe a picture. But no. Just now I did a search on the NYT website for Millions More Movement and came up with nada, zero, zilch, the big bupkiss. I also did another search on "black incarceration." and I got more than 1 result. I got quite a few results actually. It would appear the so called "liberal" NYT's finds reporting on black incarceration more 'newsworthy" than the goings on and opinions of the non-incarcerated among us.
So I'd really like to know. Does Bob Herbet have anything to say on the subject? No, I guess not. So it appears that here in 2005 Ralph Ellison still has it right. Black folks, Invisible, unless we're committing a crime or dancing a gig.
Thanks NYT's for reminding me of what's really "fit to print." At least online.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
On Chavez
Today I read an article on counterpunch that discusses Chavez, his roots and his ideology. This would be a good read for everyone and underscored why I disliked Kerry as much as Bush because Kerry was just as wrong on Venezuela and Chavez as Bush was so as far as I was concerned: same diff.
Quote:
he white elite has not been amused by Chávez's recent moves. For them, the new president was an outsider. In contrast to previous leaders in Venezuela and throughout the region who identified with the outside European world, Chávez loudly proclaimed his indigenous and African roots. Chávez himself seems well aware of the race issue. According to the Venezuelan president, racial tensions have increased since his election. "There is racism here," Chávez remarked. "It used to be more hidden and now it is more open." Chávez's opponents, who argue that racism does not exist in the country, charged that the president exploits the race card for political gain. According to Fletcher, the Chávez opposition "has attacked him [Chávez] using racist language and imagery which would be totally unacceptable in public discourse in the USA." The Venezuelan elite has used racial slurs to taint Chávez, denouncing him as a black monkey. According to author Tariq Ali, "A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chávez was even organized at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology." The attacks continued when Venezuelan media commentators referred to the Minister of Education, Aristobulo Isturiz, who is black, as "a monkey" and "an ape." Meanwhile, analysts have remarked upon the racial undertones of political conflict in Chávez's Venezuela. "Class and skin color differences," remarks Wilpert, "clearly correlate very highly at demonstrations, such that the darker skinned (and presumably lower class) support the Chávez government and the lighter skinned (and presumably middle and upper class) oppose the Chávez government."
links:http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff10142005.html
Quote:
he white elite has not been amused by Chávez's recent moves. For them, the new president was an outsider. In contrast to previous leaders in Venezuela and throughout the region who identified with the outside European world, Chávez loudly proclaimed his indigenous and African roots. Chávez himself seems well aware of the race issue. According to the Venezuelan president, racial tensions have increased since his election. "There is racism here," Chávez remarked. "It used to be more hidden and now it is more open." Chávez's opponents, who argue that racism does not exist in the country, charged that the president exploits the race card for political gain. According to Fletcher, the Chávez opposition "has attacked him [Chávez] using racist language and imagery which would be totally unacceptable in public discourse in the USA." The Venezuelan elite has used racial slurs to taint Chávez, denouncing him as a black monkey. According to author Tariq Ali, "A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chávez was even organized at the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology." The attacks continued when Venezuelan media commentators referred to the Minister of Education, Aristobulo Isturiz, who is black, as "a monkey" and "an ape." Meanwhile, analysts have remarked upon the racial undertones of political conflict in Chávez's Venezuela. "Class and skin color differences," remarks Wilpert, "clearly correlate very highly at demonstrations, such that the darker skinned (and presumably lower class) support the Chávez government and the lighter skinned (and presumably middle and upper class) oppose the Chávez government."
links:http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff10142005.html
Saturday, October 15, 2005
The Millions More Movement
So today was the Millions More Movement. I didn't go. I thought about it, but based on my experience last time, I simply did not feel like driving 3 hours to stand on wet grass and listen to speeches for the day and then drive 3 hours back to NY. SO I watched the speeches on C-SPAN.
What I saw on C-SPAN was much like what I experienced 10 years ago at the MMM. So I don't feel that I missed much, except the drive and the stand. I won't get into how many people may or may not have shown up because ultimately I don't think it's very important. What is important is what happens after tomorrow (This was a 3 day event). I just wanted to make some observations though:
1) Religion: While I "rested my eyes" I heard a speaker say that the only basis for black people to unify is around spirituality because we don't have a culture with which to rally around. While I think that the point about shared culture is valid to an extent, I must disagree with "spirituality" being the basis of unity. Firstly, if we are discussing a Pan-African government and society in which multiple types of people are involved, we have to realize that as small a minority as they may be, there are those who do not believe in God. Furthermore it is not the place of a movement for empowering black people to dictate that they must believe in God.
The second problem with the "spirituality" arguement is the insistance by many to define God in masculine terms. There are many of us who simply do not agree with this and we are slowly but surely voicing our position that we will not sit by and be silent while assumptions about "God" are made by those who claim to represent us.
This brings me to the second isssue. I watched a Reverend, whos name I don't recall start preaching about Jesus. Again, in the wish for unity, I don't see why that was relevant (though I'm sure he thought so) or neccessary. He should have gotten a clue when his calls for "Amen" went largely unanswered. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could refrain from "preaching" (and I didn't catch all of thier presentations) then this particular individual should have refrained as well. Of course if Jesse Jackson did preach, then this last comment is out the window ain't it?
It appears that we have forgotten the lesson that Brother Malcolm X taught us: Leave your religion in the closet because it can become a point of friction and fractionalization when dealing with unity issues.
The second issue deals with a portion of Farahkhan's speech were he discussed the slowness of African unity. He was very brief on the subject, but I think that the issue should be looked at in more detail. There is quite a bit of "tribalism" that will prevent the unification of Africa. There is not only ethnic "tribalism" but also growing religious "tribalism" that will tear apart coutries like Nigeria and Sudan much like we saw in Rwanda. This post is not going to venture to discuss a solution for this problem especially since much of these issues are ingrained for hundreds of years.
What I liked very much about the MMM was that the speakers spoke on many issues that have been co-opted by so called Black Conservatives. This made patent liars out of those so called "Black conservatives" who make their living attempting to smear us, us being the radicals, of being anti-family, anti-marriage, anti- self responsibility, anti-business. They were exposed for being that which we have always known them to be: white racists in black skins. can they honestly say that they had no clue that we were pro-family? and pro-Self-Responsibility? If they say that then they are exposed for not being in touch with the black radical community. That would also mean that they, like their white counterparts, base thier opinions on the grossly distorted information fed by the media.
I hope that the parishoners of those Reverends that spoke out against this event see their preachers and leaders for what they are.
Lastly I hope that those people who didn't go because they were not inclined to "black radicalism" have the chance to see the breadth of us and decide to join in.
So today was the Millions More Movement. I didn't go. I thought about it, but based on my experience last time, I simply did not feel like driving 3 hours to stand on wet grass and listen to speeches for the day and then drive 3 hours back to NY. SO I watched the speeches on C-SPAN.
What I saw on C-SPAN was much like what I experienced 10 years ago at the MMM. So I don't feel that I missed much, except the drive and the stand. I won't get into how many people may or may not have shown up because ultimately I don't think it's very important. What is important is what happens after tomorrow (This was a 3 day event). I just wanted to make some observations though:
1) Religion: While I "rested my eyes" I heard a speaker say that the only basis for black people to unify is around spirituality because we don't have a culture with which to rally around. While I think that the point about shared culture is valid to an extent, I must disagree with "spirituality" being the basis of unity. Firstly, if we are discussing a Pan-African government and society in which multiple types of people are involved, we have to realize that as small a minority as they may be, there are those who do not believe in God. Furthermore it is not the place of a movement for empowering black people to dictate that they must believe in God.
The second problem with the "spirituality" arguement is the insistance by many to define God in masculine terms. There are many of us who simply do not agree with this and we are slowly but surely voicing our position that we will not sit by and be silent while assumptions about "God" are made by those who claim to represent us.
This brings me to the second isssue. I watched a Reverend, whos name I don't recall start preaching about Jesus. Again, in the wish for unity, I don't see why that was relevant (though I'm sure he thought so) or neccessary. He should have gotten a clue when his calls for "Amen" went largely unanswered. If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could refrain from "preaching" (and I didn't catch all of thier presentations) then this particular individual should have refrained as well. Of course if Jesse Jackson did preach, then this last comment is out the window ain't it?
It appears that we have forgotten the lesson that Brother Malcolm X taught us: Leave your religion in the closet because it can become a point of friction and fractionalization when dealing with unity issues.
The second issue deals with a portion of Farahkhan's speech were he discussed the slowness of African unity. He was very brief on the subject, but I think that the issue should be looked at in more detail. There is quite a bit of "tribalism" that will prevent the unification of Africa. There is not only ethnic "tribalism" but also growing religious "tribalism" that will tear apart coutries like Nigeria and Sudan much like we saw in Rwanda. This post is not going to venture to discuss a solution for this problem especially since much of these issues are ingrained for hundreds of years.
What I liked very much about the MMM was that the speakers spoke on many issues that have been co-opted by so called Black Conservatives. This made patent liars out of those so called "Black conservatives" who make their living attempting to smear us, us being the radicals, of being anti-family, anti-marriage, anti- self responsibility, anti-business. They were exposed for being that which we have always known them to be: white racists in black skins. can they honestly say that they had no clue that we were pro-family? and pro-Self-Responsibility? If they say that then they are exposed for not being in touch with the black radical community. That would also mean that they, like their white counterparts, base thier opinions on the grossly distorted information fed by the media.
I hope that the parishoners of those Reverends that spoke out against this event see their preachers and leaders for what they are.
Lastly I hope that those people who didn't go because they were not inclined to "black radicalism" have the chance to see the breadth of us and decide to join in.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
In The Shadow Of Zimbabwe
The BBC has reported that South Africa is begining to liberate land from Afrikaners to return to blacks.
It appears that for the past 11 years the Government of South Africa has been trying to repatriate 1/3 of white "owned" land back into black hands but have only managed to transfer 4%. In this particular case we find that the value of the land to be in dispute:
Quote:
Mr Visser has the 500-hectare (1,250-acre) cattle and crop farm in Lichtenburg in North West province.
His family bought it in 1968, but a black family has lodged a claim to the property dating back to the 1940s.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission have been trying to negotiate, but failed to agree on the value of the property.
The government had offered to buy the farm for $275,000 but Mr Visser says it is worth almost twice as much.
Mr Visser now has 21 days to respond to the notice of expropriation.
In my opinion Mr. Visser should consider himself fortunate to be receiving any "compensation" for "his" land.
Having said that, having seen what a mess land transference can become, a -la-Zimbabwe, I hope that Mbeki and the ANC are very carefull in this plan. They need to make sure that land is given to persons qualified to continue the farming done there. I agree that the governemnt is right to use "eminent domain" on these lands, but they should be carefull to not scare off expertise that will be needed for at least a generation. I cannot stress it enough, that this land issue should not become cronyism.
links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4340396.stm
It appears that for the past 11 years the Government of South Africa has been trying to repatriate 1/3 of white "owned" land back into black hands but have only managed to transfer 4%. In this particular case we find that the value of the land to be in dispute:
Quote:
Mr Visser has the 500-hectare (1,250-acre) cattle and crop farm in Lichtenburg in North West province.
His family bought it in 1968, but a black family has lodged a claim to the property dating back to the 1940s.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission have been trying to negotiate, but failed to agree on the value of the property.
The government had offered to buy the farm for $275,000 but Mr Visser says it is worth almost twice as much.
Mr Visser now has 21 days to respond to the notice of expropriation.
In my opinion Mr. Visser should consider himself fortunate to be receiving any "compensation" for "his" land.
Having said that, having seen what a mess land transference can become, a -la-Zimbabwe, I hope that Mbeki and the ANC are very carefull in this plan. They need to make sure that land is given to persons qualified to continue the farming done there. I agree that the governemnt is right to use "eminent domain" on these lands, but they should be carefull to not scare off expertise that will be needed for at least a generation. I cannot stress it enough, that this land issue should not become cronyism.
links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4340396.stm
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Join the Ummah
So I'm perusing Black Electorate when I stumble across this article by Carol Wolman entitled:
Why Americans should observe Ramadan which struck me was plain WRONG for many reasons. First we have this:
Muslims all over the world consider themselves part of the body of Islam, called the ummah. This is their primary identity, stronger than national loyalty. "Islam" means "peace", and "Muslim" means "servant of God". During Ramadan, most Muslims are praying for peace. The jihadis are aberrant, heretical- Islam has no place for targeting civilians or killing people who have not attacked them. On the other hand, an attack on any Muslim is considered an attack on the entire ummah, and self-defense is legitimate, according to the Qu'ran.
Firstly, Islam does not mean "peace." I don't know who told Carol this but it is wrong. Islam means submission to God. "Salaam" means peace. With such a basic mistake how can the reader even begin to take the rest of the article seriously. Why didn't the editor of this online journal correct this before it's posting? Anyway. For some reason the author wants us to believe that in spite of the vast history available to us, Jihadis are an aberration. Yah, OK. SUURE.
Then Carol puts this out there:
Any American who considers him/herself a servant of God can join the ummah and observe Ramadan. There are no special ceremonies needed to become a Muslim, one simply has to accept Allah, and the validity of Muhammed's prophetic mission. This is a sticking point for right-wing Christians, who are taught by their false prophets that Allah is a moon god, and not the same as Eli, the God of the Bible. Muslims and the Qu'ran, however, emphasize that Allah IS the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the ultimate leader, and that Muslims are descended spiritually from Abraham, through his older son Ishmael.
Oh I see, It's not really about fasting, it's about becoming a Muslim. See that's the problem. You'll note that the author wants us to believe that rejection of the institution of Islam is a by product of right wing Christianity. Note to author: Some of we aren't even Christians. But I don't want to dwell on that point. What is important here is the discussion of the Ummah, Jihadis and why taking Carol's advice is a bad idea.
The modern ideology of Jihad was authored by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While imprisoned he wrote that the world is divided into two realms:
Dar Al-Islam- The abode of Islam. and Dar Al-Harb- The abode of war. He wrote that Muslims should not fight for a particular piece of land, but rather the whole Dar- Al -Islam, which we shall refer to as the Ummah. Dar Al Harb is any place that hampered the practice of Islam and/or failed to apply Sharia. Furthermore the abode of war should be combated even if one's own relatives, national group, capital and commerce are there.
Later another Egyptian, Muhammad Al-Farag, a leader in Jamaat al Jihad movement wrote in a tract entitled "The Neglected Obligation" that Jihad was the sixth pilar of Islam and that armed struggle was an imperative for all true muslims.
"There is no doubt that the first battlefield for Jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order."
So since the objective of the Jihadi is ultimately to convert the infidel to Islam, the suggestion by Carol, that we join the Ummah, actually plays right into the Jihadi goal. Even though Carol couches her suggestion as a means to oppose the Bush regime, it is simply an unwise and ill informed suggestion. Rather than roll over for the Jihadi, those of us who are not Muslims, should denounce the Bush regime and Jihadis in our own terms from within our own faiths and belief systems.
So I'm perusing Black Electorate when I stumble across this article by Carol Wolman entitled:
Why Americans should observe Ramadan which struck me was plain WRONG for many reasons. First we have this:
Muslims all over the world consider themselves part of the body of Islam, called the ummah. This is their primary identity, stronger than national loyalty. "Islam" means "peace", and "Muslim" means "servant of God". During Ramadan, most Muslims are praying for peace. The jihadis are aberrant, heretical- Islam has no place for targeting civilians or killing people who have not attacked them. On the other hand, an attack on any Muslim is considered an attack on the entire ummah, and self-defense is legitimate, according to the Qu'ran.
Firstly, Islam does not mean "peace." I don't know who told Carol this but it is wrong. Islam means submission to God. "Salaam" means peace. With such a basic mistake how can the reader even begin to take the rest of the article seriously. Why didn't the editor of this online journal correct this before it's posting? Anyway. For some reason the author wants us to believe that in spite of the vast history available to us, Jihadis are an aberration. Yah, OK. SUURE.
Then Carol puts this out there:
Any American who considers him/herself a servant of God can join the ummah and observe Ramadan. There are no special ceremonies needed to become a Muslim, one simply has to accept Allah, and the validity of Muhammed's prophetic mission. This is a sticking point for right-wing Christians, who are taught by their false prophets that Allah is a moon god, and not the same as Eli, the God of the Bible. Muslims and the Qu'ran, however, emphasize that Allah IS the God of the Bible, that Jesus is the ultimate leader, and that Muslims are descended spiritually from Abraham, through his older son Ishmael.
Oh I see, It's not really about fasting, it's about becoming a Muslim. See that's the problem. You'll note that the author wants us to believe that rejection of the institution of Islam is a by product of right wing Christianity. Note to author: Some of we aren't even Christians. But I don't want to dwell on that point. What is important here is the discussion of the Ummah, Jihadis and why taking Carol's advice is a bad idea.
The modern ideology of Jihad was authored by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. While imprisoned he wrote that the world is divided into two realms:
Dar Al-Islam- The abode of Islam. and Dar Al-Harb- The abode of war. He wrote that Muslims should not fight for a particular piece of land, but rather the whole Dar- Al -Islam, which we shall refer to as the Ummah. Dar Al Harb is any place that hampered the practice of Islam and/or failed to apply Sharia. Furthermore the abode of war should be combated even if one's own relatives, national group, capital and commerce are there.
Later another Egyptian, Muhammad Al-Farag, a leader in Jamaat al Jihad movement wrote in a tract entitled "The Neglected Obligation" that Jihad was the sixth pilar of Islam and that armed struggle was an imperative for all true muslims.
"There is no doubt that the first battlefield for Jihad is the extermination of these infidel leaders and to replace them by a complete Islamic Order."
So since the objective of the Jihadi is ultimately to convert the infidel to Islam, the suggestion by Carol, that we join the Ummah, actually plays right into the Jihadi goal. Even though Carol couches her suggestion as a means to oppose the Bush regime, it is simply an unwise and ill informed suggestion. Rather than roll over for the Jihadi, those of us who are not Muslims, should denounce the Bush regime and Jihadis in our own terms from within our own faiths and belief systems.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Black Babies and Crime
Bill Bennett was caught in an interview stating:
But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
An interesting comment to put it lightly. The above comment was in response to a question by a caller questioning Bennett on a hypothesis about the drop in crime being related to the rise in Abortion. The usual suspects raked Bennett over the coals and the usual suspects ran to his defense. Among the unusual suspects, at least to me, was one La Shawn Barber who thinks that Blacks have blown the entire thing out of proportion. She says:
Black women are more than three times as likely than white women to kill their babies in utero. Thirty-six percent of all abortions are performed on black women. Bennett said that is morally reprehensible. But you won’t ever hear the media-addicted Jesse Jackson or the clownish Al Sharpton or the virulent Howard Dean or bigoted John Kerry say that. Your very own NAACP OFFICIALLY advocates the murders of its own people, and over 70 percent of black babies are born to women who didn’t bother to get married and create a stable home for their children, but you’re “outraged” over what some white man said?
And
Third, Bennett’s hypothetical is based on fact. Blacks are 12.3 percent of the population, and about half are black men, which means black men are approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population. [Note: Until I remember where I got a certain statistic and link to the source, I’m deleting it. Look for an update tomorrow. In the meantime, the stats found at BJS are still alarming.] (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Why aren’t you outraged over those shameful statistics?
Hypothetically speaking, if fewer black boys were born, there’d be fewer around to commit crimes. Bennett didn’t (and couldn’t if he wanted to!) say that all blacks commit crimes. In the aggregate, however, blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their numbers in the general population. It follows, statistically speaking, that the fewer blacks there are, the fewer crimes will be committed. This is not a racist statement, people. It is a statistical reality. Blame black criminal thugs for preying on their own people, not Bill Bennett for pointing it out. Illogical!
These are the linchpins of her argument. I won't get into the abortion as murder argument, but I will say that in reference to Bill Bennett's position it is irrelevant. The problem with Bennett's statement is not its reference to abortion, but rather who should or would be aborted to get this great reduction in crime. Why would Mr. Bennett choose to single out the abortion of every black baby? Not black males (whom are the most likely to be incarcerated in the black population) but all black babies? See that really underscores the subconscious understanding that black people are a threat to society. Period. But La Shawn depends upon statistics so lets go there.
According to the Bureau of Prisons as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are 4,919 black male inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States (June 2004). If you divide the black population (~40 mill) in half and do the math (20 mill *4919)/100,000 you would get a total of 983,800 black male inmates or 2.45% of the total black population.
White males are represented by 717 male inmates per 100,000 white males. In 1988 the white/black population ratio was 6.44. If we assume this number to still be accurate then our hypothetical white male population would be 128,800,000 people. Doing the math we did for the black population, we would get another 923,496 inmates. If we put these numbers together we get close to the total prison population of the US as of June 2005 (2,131,180). What immediately jumps out is that following Bennett’s logic, if we aborted every white baby, we would see the same drop in crime, since eliminating all white babies or all black babies would produce, mathematically, the same drop in inmates, and the crimes they committed.
So then, why, if Mr. Bennett is so informed, did he choose to pick on black babies? Hmmmmmm. Perhaps it is because the 2.4% of black males that commit crimes and are convicted of them are more in the forefront of the consciousness of Americans than we would like to believe. After all we get to hear about black males being 4x, 9x and whatever X more than whites to be doing something negative. But when we look at actual numbers we realize we are talking about a relatively small number of people. A relatively small population spread out over many states.
Fully 50% of those incarcerated are for drug offenses. 50%. We already know that, for example, the Rockefeller laws of NY state placed many blacks into prisons for the mere possession of a bit of crack, while powder cocaine users, who are largely white, were getting off easy. Are we then not surprised when in certain locales, blacks make up a large majority of prison inmates and whites do not? This isn't to pooh pooh the drug trade, but merely to show the clear bias in Bennett’s statement. If you wanted to reduce crime (as indicated by incarceration) merely treat crack users like powder cocaine users and voila! Instant drop in crime. Better yet, legalize drug use and realize a full 50% drop in drug crimes, and perhaps a good percentage of it's attendant ills of prostitution, homicides and homicide.
But the statement wasn't really about crime or abortion. The statement was about blacks being perceived as the cause of crime. Crime is a Black problem. Crime wears a black face. This is why we find Bennett’s comments offensive. Not because it was statistically wrong, but that it portrayed crime as a black problem and harkens back to the Eugenicists who claimed that lower class people (blacks and poor whites) ought to not breed in order to reduce the burden on society. We should all be alarmed when such ideas are put forth in such a ways to feed the idea that crime is a BLACK problem.
Of course you don't have to see it that way. You can see it as a simple abortion and statistical issue. But if you see it that way, don't go calling the rest of us names 'cause we don’t.
Bill Bennett was caught in an interview stating:
But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, you know, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
An interesting comment to put it lightly. The above comment was in response to a question by a caller questioning Bennett on a hypothesis about the drop in crime being related to the rise in Abortion. The usual suspects raked Bennett over the coals and the usual suspects ran to his defense. Among the unusual suspects, at least to me, was one La Shawn Barber who thinks that Blacks have blown the entire thing out of proportion. She says:
Black women are more than three times as likely than white women to kill their babies in utero. Thirty-six percent of all abortions are performed on black women. Bennett said that is morally reprehensible. But you won’t ever hear the media-addicted Jesse Jackson or the clownish Al Sharpton or the virulent Howard Dean or bigoted John Kerry say that. Your very own NAACP OFFICIALLY advocates the murders of its own people, and over 70 percent of black babies are born to women who didn’t bother to get married and create a stable home for their children, but you’re “outraged” over what some white man said?
And
Third, Bennett’s hypothetical is based on fact. Blacks are 12.3 percent of the population, and about half are black men, which means black men are approximately 6 percent of the U.S. population. [Note: Until I remember where I got a certain statistic and link to the source, I’m deleting it. Look for an update tomorrow. In the meantime, the stats found at BJS are still alarming.] (see Bureau of Justice Statistics). Why aren’t you outraged over those shameful statistics?
Hypothetically speaking, if fewer black boys were born, there’d be fewer around to commit crimes. Bennett didn’t (and couldn’t if he wanted to!) say that all blacks commit crimes. In the aggregate, however, blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes relative to their numbers in the general population. It follows, statistically speaking, that the fewer blacks there are, the fewer crimes will be committed. This is not a racist statement, people. It is a statistical reality. Blame black criminal thugs for preying on their own people, not Bill Bennett for pointing it out. Illogical!
These are the linchpins of her argument. I won't get into the abortion as murder argument, but I will say that in reference to Bill Bennett's position it is irrelevant. The problem with Bennett's statement is not its reference to abortion, but rather who should or would be aborted to get this great reduction in crime. Why would Mr. Bennett choose to single out the abortion of every black baby? Not black males (whom are the most likely to be incarcerated in the black population) but all black babies? See that really underscores the subconscious understanding that black people are a threat to society. Period. But La Shawn depends upon statistics so lets go there.
According to the Bureau of Prisons as well as the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are 4,919 black male inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States (June 2004). If you divide the black population (~40 mill) in half and do the math (20 mill *4919)/100,000 you would get a total of 983,800 black male inmates or 2.45% of the total black population.
White males are represented by 717 male inmates per 100,000 white males. In 1988 the white/black population ratio was 6.44. If we assume this number to still be accurate then our hypothetical white male population would be 128,800,000 people. Doing the math we did for the black population, we would get another 923,496 inmates. If we put these numbers together we get close to the total prison population of the US as of June 2005 (2,131,180). What immediately jumps out is that following Bennett’s logic, if we aborted every white baby, we would see the same drop in crime, since eliminating all white babies or all black babies would produce, mathematically, the same drop in inmates, and the crimes they committed.
So then, why, if Mr. Bennett is so informed, did he choose to pick on black babies? Hmmmmmm. Perhaps it is because the 2.4% of black males that commit crimes and are convicted of them are more in the forefront of the consciousness of Americans than we would like to believe. After all we get to hear about black males being 4x, 9x and whatever X more than whites to be doing something negative. But when we look at actual numbers we realize we are talking about a relatively small number of people. A relatively small population spread out over many states.
Fully 50% of those incarcerated are for drug offenses. 50%. We already know that, for example, the Rockefeller laws of NY state placed many blacks into prisons for the mere possession of a bit of crack, while powder cocaine users, who are largely white, were getting off easy. Are we then not surprised when in certain locales, blacks make up a large majority of prison inmates and whites do not? This isn't to pooh pooh the drug trade, but merely to show the clear bias in Bennett’s statement. If you wanted to reduce crime (as indicated by incarceration) merely treat crack users like powder cocaine users and voila! Instant drop in crime. Better yet, legalize drug use and realize a full 50% drop in drug crimes, and perhaps a good percentage of it's attendant ills of prostitution, homicides and homicide.
But the statement wasn't really about crime or abortion. The statement was about blacks being perceived as the cause of crime. Crime is a Black problem. Crime wears a black face. This is why we find Bennett’s comments offensive. Not because it was statistically wrong, but that it portrayed crime as a black problem and harkens back to the Eugenicists who claimed that lower class people (blacks and poor whites) ought to not breed in order to reduce the burden on society. We should all be alarmed when such ideas are put forth in such a ways to feed the idea that crime is a BLACK problem.
Of course you don't have to see it that way. You can see it as a simple abortion and statistical issue. But if you see it that way, don't go calling the rest of us names 'cause we don’t.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
The Not Too Intelligent
This post will fall way out the ordinary fare of this blog. About the only link this has to any subject previously broached here is that it again critiques the religious who insist upon trying to force the rest of us to believe as they do. Back in August Time Magazine had an article about the "debate" between Darwinian Evolution (nee" Evilution to some fundamentalists) and Intelligent Design (nee: Creationism without mentioning the Christian God-Head). And let's be clear here, this is all about the Christian God head, since I am sure that should the schools decide to teach, say, the Kikuyu version of creation, all parties would be unified in attempting to get the school to stop.
However, this isn't about the relative merits of various religious views on creation, rather it is a discussion on why the ID crowd is, scientifically, wrong. I want to point the reader to one of the arguments given for ID as written in Time:
The eye couldn't possibly be the product of accidental mutations, say Darwin's critics. Sure a bird with sharper eyes might catch more prey and have more offspring, but where did the first eye come from? How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all it's parts-pinhole, lens, light sensitive surface - in order to work? It's no accident, say Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, that the eye resembles a camera, which everybody instantly recognizes as a product someone designed. "If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck," Behe writes, 'then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck."
On the surface this is a simple argument. In fact it's simplicity underscored why it is so bad (and why those who need simple, straight forward answers to things would gravitate to it). Instead of trying to argue for the eye, lets instead look at the camera.
Cameras are in fact the result of many many many different and unrelated inventions and discoveries. The person who made the first camera did not invent each and every piece himself at one time. No the camera is in fact the amalgamation of previously developed parts.
The lens: In order to make a lens one must first have discovered how to make glass. Of course to make glass one had to master fire, sand collection, etc. Clearly those who made a lens were not even remotely thinking of a camera, yet the work to make a lens and different lenses were laid down.
"Focusing Tube": For the sake of argument this is the space between the lens and the element that the image is captured on. Early cameras had flexible "tubes'. These accordion type of material used in early cameras clearly depended upon the invention of that kind of paper or whatever material it was (which is another discussion in itself).
The "Picture taking button": This is a whole other thing here. Something has to actuate the 'blinds" to take the picture. This requires vast knowledge in physics including knowledge of levers, mirrors, springs, none of which were invented with the camera in mind as a purpose.
Clearly then, there are many prior inventions and discoveries that went into the appearance of the camera. None of these events were necessarily related nor do they exist in the camera as they existed when first invented. Thus each individual portion had to appear and "evolve' in order to get to a form that would be useful in the camera. Thus the argument that the pieces of the eye (or camera) could not have "spontaneously occurred" is rendered moot since the camera itself can be proven to be the result of random mutations.
But some would say that since humans made each part then such human intervention is evidence of intelligent design. It is not. In nature cells respond to environmental stimuli. We all know about bacteria that mutate to become immune to medicines. In the human, macrocosm, humans are the "environmental stimuli." The camera, as dissected shows how each piece can and was made without some higher goal of creating this one complex thing, but rather each piece was made in, of and for itself. Similarly each mutation, each symbiotic relationship exists in and for itself.
Going back to the eye argument, Why would the light sensitive cells (retina) be situated right behind the pinhole? Why would they exist anywhere else? It could be argued that the cells that make up the retina are there because that is the only place where light enters the body and the cells are protected. The only other light responding cells in the body is the skin, where Melanocytes will produce more or less melanin in response to sunlight. It is interesting that the retina also produces Melotonin which is considered a master regulator of other hormones in the body. It is entirely possible that retinal cells and Melanocytes had the same job but by some mutation the retinal cells were able to lodge themselves in the eye. It is instructive that Melanocytes and retinal cells arise from the neural crest during embryonic development (In humans). But all of this is besides the point, since I'm not trying to explain how (as I am not qualified to do so).
ultimately the argument that this ID supporter uses is weak. Those unfamiliar with the science behind Darwinian Evolution would fall easily to the arguments behind ID. Unfortunately a great deal of the American public actually has very little science knowledge. So it is no surprise that the arguments are even being considered.
This post will fall way out the ordinary fare of this blog. About the only link this has to any subject previously broached here is that it again critiques the religious who insist upon trying to force the rest of us to believe as they do. Back in August Time Magazine had an article about the "debate" between Darwinian Evolution (nee" Evilution to some fundamentalists) and Intelligent Design (nee: Creationism without mentioning the Christian God-Head). And let's be clear here, this is all about the Christian God head, since I am sure that should the schools decide to teach, say, the Kikuyu version of creation, all parties would be unified in attempting to get the school to stop.
However, this isn't about the relative merits of various religious views on creation, rather it is a discussion on why the ID crowd is, scientifically, wrong. I want to point the reader to one of the arguments given for ID as written in Time:
The eye couldn't possibly be the product of accidental mutations, say Darwin's critics. Sure a bird with sharper eyes might catch more prey and have more offspring, but where did the first eye come from? How could a process of gradual improvements produce a complex organ that needs all it's parts-pinhole, lens, light sensitive surface - in order to work? It's no accident, say Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, that the eye resembles a camera, which everybody instantly recognizes as a product someone designed. "If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck," Behe writes, 'then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck."
On the surface this is a simple argument. In fact it's simplicity underscored why it is so bad (and why those who need simple, straight forward answers to things would gravitate to it). Instead of trying to argue for the eye, lets instead look at the camera.
Cameras are in fact the result of many many many different and unrelated inventions and discoveries. The person who made the first camera did not invent each and every piece himself at one time. No the camera is in fact the amalgamation of previously developed parts.
The lens: In order to make a lens one must first have discovered how to make glass. Of course to make glass one had to master fire, sand collection, etc. Clearly those who made a lens were not even remotely thinking of a camera, yet the work to make a lens and different lenses were laid down.
"Focusing Tube": For the sake of argument this is the space between the lens and the element that the image is captured on. Early cameras had flexible "tubes'. These accordion type of material used in early cameras clearly depended upon the invention of that kind of paper or whatever material it was (which is another discussion in itself).
The "Picture taking button": This is a whole other thing here. Something has to actuate the 'blinds" to take the picture. This requires vast knowledge in physics including knowledge of levers, mirrors, springs, none of which were invented with the camera in mind as a purpose.
Clearly then, there are many prior inventions and discoveries that went into the appearance of the camera. None of these events were necessarily related nor do they exist in the camera as they existed when first invented. Thus each individual portion had to appear and "evolve' in order to get to a form that would be useful in the camera. Thus the argument that the pieces of the eye (or camera) could not have "spontaneously occurred" is rendered moot since the camera itself can be proven to be the result of random mutations.
But some would say that since humans made each part then such human intervention is evidence of intelligent design. It is not. In nature cells respond to environmental stimuli. We all know about bacteria that mutate to become immune to medicines. In the human, macrocosm, humans are the "environmental stimuli." The camera, as dissected shows how each piece can and was made without some higher goal of creating this one complex thing, but rather each piece was made in, of and for itself. Similarly each mutation, each symbiotic relationship exists in and for itself.
Going back to the eye argument, Why would the light sensitive cells (retina) be situated right behind the pinhole? Why would they exist anywhere else? It could be argued that the cells that make up the retina are there because that is the only place where light enters the body and the cells are protected. The only other light responding cells in the body is the skin, where Melanocytes will produce more or less melanin in response to sunlight. It is interesting that the retina also produces Melotonin which is considered a master regulator of other hormones in the body. It is entirely possible that retinal cells and Melanocytes had the same job but by some mutation the retinal cells were able to lodge themselves in the eye. It is instructive that Melanocytes and retinal cells arise from the neural crest during embryonic development (In humans). But all of this is besides the point, since I'm not trying to explain how (as I am not qualified to do so).
ultimately the argument that this ID supporter uses is weak. Those unfamiliar with the science behind Darwinian Evolution would fall easily to the arguments behind ID. Unfortunately a great deal of the American public actually has very little science knowledge. So it is no surprise that the arguments are even being considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)